Sunday, July 05, 2026

Op-Ed

Trump’s UFC Cage Fight Is an Apt Metaphor for a Nation Built on Colonial Violence

The White House’s Freedom 250 spectacle grotesquely exposed the settler-colonial legacy of 1776.

July 2, 2026

Fireworks go off during "UFC Freedom 250" mixed martial arts event on the South Lawn of the White House on June 15, 2026, in Washington, D.C.Saul Loeb - Pool / Getty Images


“On July 4th, 1776 … the United States became the greatest force for freedom, justice, equality, and prosperity in the history of the world,” President Donald Trump declared in a promotional video for the Freedom 250 campaign, the administration’s flagship initiative commemorating the U.S.’s semiquincentennial. Among the centerpiece events planned for the nation’s 250th birthday celebration was an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) cage fight on the grounds of the White House.

The June 14 event, which occurred on Trump’s birthday and Flag Day, delivered exactly what he promised: a pageant of power, violence, and nationalism staged at the seat of U.S. power. Thousands gathered around an octagonal cage erected on the White House grounds; cabinet secretaries mingled with senators, tech billionaires with celebrity athletes, media personalities with corporate sponsors, all beneath military flyovers and pyrotechnic displays. Under the lights, fighters bloodied one another as the crowd roared its approval.

Liberals found the event crass. Sen. Patty Murray called it “out of touch.” New York Times opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg wrote, “On the 250th anniversary of our country’s founding, America’s increasingly senescent president turned the White House lawn into a tacky, bloody gladiatorial arena.” Meanwhile, CNN quoted one historian who asked, “What does a UFC fight have to do with America’s greatness?”

The historian’s question assumes that the values represented by the spectacle — domination, hierarchy, and the glorification of power — are fundamentally at odds with the ideals of the founding of the United States. But what if the contradiction lies not between the cage match and the American Revolution, but between the history that people in the U.S. are taught and the history that actually unfolded? To answer that question, it helps to begin with an observation from Martinican poet and anti-colonial theorist Aimé Césaire: “No one colonizes innocently.”

By fusing combat, militarism, celebrity culture, and nationalism into a single public performance, the White House cage match endeavored to cast repression, xenophobia, and extreme inequality not as threats to freedom but as expressions of national strength.

Americans are taught that their nation was born in the cradle of liberty. But Césaire’s insight requires us to confront a more disquieting truth: The U.S. republic emerged from another womb altogether — the smoke of burning villages, the holds of slave ships, and the ambitions of a colonial elite willing to unleash unspeakable violence in pursuit of wealth and power. Indeed, what better way to party like it’s 1776 than with a spectacle of combat staged at the center of U.S. empire?

The cage fight, surrounded by representatives of every branch of the armed forces, was part of Trump’s effort to cultivate a cult of personality. Writing under Nazi rule, cultural theorist Walter Benjamin described fascism as the “aestheticization of politics” — the transformation of political life into spectacle in order to generate emotional attachment to authority. By fusing combat, militarism, celebrity culture, and nationalism into a single public performance, the White House cage match endeavored to cast repression, xenophobia, and extreme inequality not as threats to freedom but as expressions of national strength.

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, the country faces rising authoritarianism, ongoing state violence against Black communities, a worsening affordability crisis, widening wars, climate catastrophe, attacks on immigrants and LGBTQ+ people, and an escalating siege on critical education. We can no longer afford to leave the meaning of 1776 to Donald Trump, establishment Democratic Party politicians, billionaire-funded media outlets, or the sanitized narratives found in many textbooks. Only by confronting the republic’s colonial foundations — and recovering the traditions of freedom forged by those who resisted them — can we pursue a different future.


National Innocence or Colonial Brutality?


Trump’s over-the-top jingoism obscures a deeper truth: The refusal to reckon with the United States as a settler-colonial project is a bipartisan affliction. As President Barack Obama declared: “The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.” President Joe Biden similarly argued, “Deep in the heart of America burns a flame lit almost 250 years ago — of liberty, freedom, and equality.” Trump did not invent the founding fairytale of innocence; he inherited and radicalized this bedtime story that has from the beginning called the United States the “fairest of them all” to obscure its colonial origins.

The U.S. republic emerged from the smoke of burning villages, the holds of slave ships, and the ambitions of a colonial elite willing to unleash unspeakable violence in pursuit of wealth and power.

It’s clear Trump has exploited the bipartisan faith in American exceptionalism to suppress dissent and concentrate executive power. Yet his authoritarianism is less an aberration than the latest expression of a recurring pattern. From slavery and Indigenous dispossession to Jim Crow, Japanese American incarceration during World War II, McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, and NSPM-7 today, authoritarianism has repeatedly resurfaced. Its roots lie in the colonial foundations of the republic, where conquest, racial hierarchy, and state violence became enduring instruments of governance. The 20th century’s most infamous authoritarian movements did not emerge from nowhere. They drew upon centuries of colonial practice. For example, Adolf Hitler openly admired the United States’ genocide of Indigenous peoples. In a 1928 speech, he praised white American settlers for having “gunned down” millions of Indigenous people until only a “few hundred thousand” remained. As James Q. Whitman, author Hitler’s American Model, notes, “Beyond its laws, the Nazis also admired America’s conquest of the West.” Nazi leaders viewed the United States’ seizure of Indigenous lands and westward expansion as precedents for their own project of Lebensraum (“living space”) — the conquest and ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europe.

The Nazi fascination with the U.S. frontier was rooted in a historical reality that many accounts of 1776 still minimize. As historian Nick Estes, a citizen of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, writes, the Haudenosaunee remember George Washington as the “town destroyer” for ordering the destruction of dozens of Haudenosaunee towns during the Revolutionary War. “In a very real sense,” Estes concludes, “the founding of the United States was a declaration of war against Indigenous peoples.” One of the principal grievances driving many advocates of independence was the British Crown’s attempt to restrict westward expansion after the Seven Years’ War. The Declaration of Independence itself denounced Indigenous peoples as “merciless Indian Savages,” revealing that Native nations were viewed as obstacles to colonial expansion rather than sovereign peoples. Independence swept aside those restraints and accelerated a centuries-long project of dispossession, forced removal, and genocide.

For anti-colonial thinkers such as Aimé Césaire, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Walter Rodney, fascism was not a departure from colonialism but one of its logical destinations. As historian Robin D. G. Kelley argues in his introduction to Césaire’s Discourse on Colonialism, one of the book’s most important contributions was its effort to “locate the origins of fascism within colonialism itself.” Kelley and the anti-colonialists he draws on have shown that white supremacy, dispossession, dehumanization, and state violence did not begin with fascism. Those methods had long been refined through colonial conquest, empire, and racial domination before they were turned inward against Europe itself.


Only by confronting the republic’s colonial foundations — and recovering the traditions of freedom forged by those who resisted them — can we pursue a different future.

Most people in the U.S. have been taught to view 1776 as the starting point for understanding the origins of freedom. But the choices confronting enslaved people during the American Revolution reveal the limits of the “patriot” vision. In 1772, Lord Mansfield ruled in favor of James Somerset, an enslaved African who resisted being returned from England to slavery in Jamaica, alarming colonial slaveholders who feared Britain might eventually restrict slavery. Those fears intensified in 1775 when Lord Dunmore, Virginia’s royal governor, offered freedom to enslaved people owned by rebel colonists if they escaped and joined the British side. Thousands fled to British lines. So threatening was the prospect of enslaved people claiming freedom that the Declaration of Independence condemned George III for having “excited domestic insurrections amongst us” — a phrase widely understood as a reference to Dunmore’s proclamation. For many colonial elites, one of the gravest dangers posed by British rule was that it might undermine slavery itself.

The American Revolution looked very different from the tobacco and cotton fields than it did from the plantation house or Independence Hall. Take the question Frederick Douglass asked in his famous speech, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” and consider his conclusion:

This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, [is] inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.

More than a century later, the Black revolutionary and anti-colonial thinker Malcolm X advanced a similar critique, urging Black people to reject the assumption that their freedom originated with the American founding:

We are Africans, and we happen to be in America. We are not Americans. We are a people who formerly were Africans who were kidnapped and brought to America. Our forefathers weren’t the Pilgrims. We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock; the rock landed on us. We were brought here against our will … We were not brought here to enjoy the constitutional gifts that they speak so beautifully about today.

Malcolm X’s challenge forces us to confront the reality that the American Revolution was shaped by conquest, slavery, and elite rule. Once we abandon the assumption that 1776 represents the highest expression of freedom, another revolution comes into view — one that pushed the ideals of liberty and equality far beyond anything the U.S. founders were willing to imagine.


Fear of a Black Republic


To understand the limits of the American Revolution, we need only compare it to the Haitian Revolution, which erupted shortly thereafter in the same Atlantic world. The Haitian Revolution breached the walls U.S. and European empires had erected around the idea that freedom was the sole property of white people, and rescued the idea of emancipation as the natural human condition.

Beginning in 1791, enslaved people in the French colony of Saint-Domingue revolted against one of the most brutal slave systems in the world. Under the leadership of figures such as Toussaint Louverture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines, they defeated French, Spanish, and British armies and, in 1804, established Haiti — the first Black republic and the only nation ever created through a successful slave revolution.


At a moment when the United States restricted citizenship and political power along racial lines, Haiti offered a strikingly different vision — one in which solidarity with the struggle against slavery and colonialism mattered more than ancestry or skin color.

The contrast with the United States is striking. Haiti’s 1805 Constitution declared that “Slavery is forever abolished” and that “all acception of color” was “necessarily to cease,” while the U.S. Constitution protected slavery and racism through the Three-Fifths Clause and the Fugitive Slave Clause. Haiti’s commitment to freedom was not limited to people of African descent. After independence, Haitian leaders granted citizenship and full rights to many Polish soldiers who had defected from Napoleon’s army and joined the revolutionary cause. At a moment when the United States restricted citizenship and political power along racial lines, Haiti offered a strikingly different vision — one in which solidarity with the struggle against slavery and colonialism mattered more than ancestry or skin color.

Yet Haitian revolutionaries also understood that freedom’s greatest enemies often masqueraded as its guileless defenders.

Toussaint Louverture, the brilliant Haitian general who led the revolution, understood that systems of domination rarely announce themselves as such and prefer to hide behind a mask of innocence. Writing in 1799, Louverture warned of “the unity that exists between the proprietors of St.-Domingue who are in France, those in the United States, and those who serve under the English banner.” These slaveholding interests from powerful nations, he argued, were united behind an “unequivocal and carefully constructed” plan for “the restoration of slavery.” Yet they did not openly proclaim themselves enemies of freedom. Instead, he observed, they sought to “envelop themselves in the mantle of liberty in order to strike it more deadly blows.”

As historian Leslie M. Alexander explains in her book, Fear of a Black Republic, Haitian independence “transformed global conceptions of freedom and challenged existing assumptions about who possessed human rights and who did not.” The revolution exposed the lie that slavery was natural or permanent and proved that enslaved people could overthrow their oppressors and govern themselves.

The panic was immediate among enslavers and the leaders of the new United States. As historian Brian Jones notes in his book, Black History Is For Everyone, over a nearly two-year period from 1791 to 1793, U.S. officials sent approximately $726,000 to Saint-Domingue to support enslavers attempting to crush the uprising.

As the uprising spread across Saint-Domingue in 1791, President George Washington declared, “Lamentable! To see such a spirit of revolt among the Blacks.” Alexander Hamilton described the Haitian Revolution as a “calamitous event.” In 1793, Thomas Jefferson — the author of the July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence — feared that the Haitian Revolution threatened the entire slave system of the Americas, worrying that “all the West India Islands will remain in the hands of the people of colour” and that slaveholders south of the Potomac might one day have to “wade through” similarly “bloody scenes.” Fearing that the rebellion would inspire enslaved people in the United States, Jefferson warned that unless slaveholders and the U.S. government acted quickly to contain its influence, they would bring ruin upon themselves: “If something is not done, and done soon, we shall be the murderers of our own children.”

By 1802, Jefferson expressed the great fears of freedom-loving enslavers everywhere when he said that Haiti had already “given considerable impulse to the minds of the slaves” and that “a great disposition to insurgency has manifested itself among them.”

The hostility was not merely rhetorical. After becoming president, Jefferson imposed an economically devastating embargo on Haiti, and the United States refused to formally recognize Haitian independence until 1862. Haiti’s greatest crime, in the eyes of enslavers, was that it cracked open history and revealed another future waiting inside — a future in which Black people not only won their freedom but established their own sovereign nation.

This history undermines one of the most common defenses of the founders: that they were merely people of their time. The Haitian Revolution demonstrates that the brutality of slavery was not beyond the moral imagination of the 18th century. Enslaved people, abolitionists, Maroons, and Indigenous resisters understood it well. Haiti proved that a republic could be built on abolition rather than slavery. The question was never whether a broader vision of freedom was possible, but whether those who benefited from oppression would surrender power.

The fact of the Haitian Revolution also demolishes the claim that the United States led the world toward abolition. As PragerU — the far right propaganda organization that produces videos for children — asserts, “America was one of the first places on earth to outlaw slavery.” Or as one of their flagrantly inaccurate videos proclaimed, “White people were the first to formally put an end to slavery … white men led the world in putting an end to the abhorrent practice.”


If the next 250 years are to bring us closer to freedom than the last, we must reject the colonial lie that the founding of the United States marked the fulfillment of freedom.

The truth is the United States maintained slavery longer than every independent nation in the Americas except Brazil and Paraguay (with the Spanish colonies of Cuba and Puerto Rico abolishing slavery later as well). Black Haitians abolished slavery in 1804 — long before Britain, France, or the United States — and helped spread emancipation throughout the Americas, including through its support for Simón Bolívar’s anti-colonial struggles. It took the bloodiest war in U.S. history to finally destroy the institution of slavery in 1865 because so much of the nation’s political and economic system was built upon it.

The history of emancipation in the Americas reveals that the most expansive visions of freedom emerged not from white men with silver shoe buckles and powdered wigs, but from barefoot Black revolutionaries with natural curls and the scars from leg irons. At stake in our interpretation of the American Revolution is more than the reputation of the founders; it is the kind of society we believe is possible and the future we are struggling to create.

The Fight for the Next 250


If the next 250 years are to bring us closer to freedom than the last, we must reject the colonial lie that the founding of the United States marked the fulfillment of freedom. Yet rejecting that lie does not mean denying its significance.

The American Revolution did help demonstrate that kings could be overthrown and challenged hereditary rule. Its language of liberty was seized upon by women, laborers, abolitionists, and democratic radicals who insisted that freedom meant far more than independence from Britain. Take formerly enslaved Boston abolitionist Prince Hall, who seized upon the American Revolution’s own language to demand the abolition of slavery. In a 1777 petition to the Massachusetts legislature, Hall and seven other free Black men insisted that enslaved people possessed “a natural and unalienable right to that freedom” bestowed “equally on all mankind.” Thomas Paine was another such radical. His bestselling pamphlet Common Sense helped ignite the American Revolution, while his 1775 essay “African Slavery in America” denounced slavery as “an outrage against humanity” and called for its abolition. As Hall and Paine demonstrate, the American Revolution raised expectations for freedom that many of its most powerful leaders worked just as fiercely to keep from becoming universal.

To decolonize our understanding of 1776, however, is not simply to recover missing voices to the story of the American Revolution. It is to recognize that the most expansive traditions of freedom were not the product of a colonial elite, but instead lived in Indigenous resistance to conquest, in slave rebellions, in the Haitian Revolution, in abolitionism, in Reconstruction, and in the many social movements for collective liberation.

It is no accident that these traditions are being targeted today. Voting rights are under attack. State violence continues to be inflicted on Black communities. The United States continues to occupy Native land and refuses to honor treaties it signed with Indigenous nations. Educational gag orders and book bans seek to prevent people from learning about racism, colonialism, and inequality. As the United States celebrates its 250th birthday, it also celebrates an economic order that has produced both 44 million people living in poverty and, however briefly, the world’s first trillionaire, Elon Musk — whose fortune has been propelled in part by his investments in SpaceX, a company dedicated to colonizing Mars.


Once we understand that some of the deepest roots of authoritarianism lie within the colonial foundations of the republic itself, we can better grasp the scale of the transformation necessary to achieve genuine freedom.

Perhaps the deepest legacy of colonialism is not only the conquest of land, but also the conquest of political imagination itself. Two hundred and fifty years after 1776, we are still taught that the highest expression of freedom is expansion — ever more power, ever more wealth, ever more conquest. The colonial imagination of the U.S. elite can conceive of colonies on Mars more readily than justice on Earth. We are asked to believe that colonizing another planet is a realistic and noble ambition while guaranteeing housing, health care, education, and dignity for every person is dismissed as utopian fantasy.

More than 70 years ago, Aimé Césaire warned that “a civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization.” His warning remains our own. Once we understand that some of the deepest roots of authoritarianism lie within the colonial foundations of the republic itself, we can better grasp the scale of the transformation necessary to achieve genuine freedom. Decolonizing 1776 therefore requires more than rethinking the past; it requires reclaiming our capacity to imagine a different future that can guide the struggle for the next 250 years.

As Louverture declared during the Haitian Revolution: “I want Liberty and Equality to reign … I work to bring them into existence. Unite yourselves to us, brothers, and fight with us for the same cause.”

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.


Jesse Hagopian

Jesse Hagopian is a Seattle educator, the director of the Zinn Education Project’s Teaching for Black Lives Campaign, an editor for Rethinking Schools, and the author of the book, Teach Truth: The Struggle for Antiracist Education. You can follow him at IAmAnEducator.com, Instagram, Bluesky or Substack.


Interview

Frederick Douglass’s Words Are More Relevant Than Ever on US’s 250th Birthday


In his powerful speech, “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?” Douglass spoke truth to power.

July 2, 2026
Members of the National Guard are seen near a statue of Frederick Douglass in the Capitol Visitor Center as the House debates an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump on January 13, 2021, in Washington, D.C.Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Narratives of American “greatness” abound surrounding July 4, but by whom and for whom are they created?

As we observe the U.S.’s 250th birthday, I am reminded of the words of James Baldwin, who wrote that, in the true pursuit of justice, one does not lend an ear to those who are invested in maintaining power, but instead, “one goes to the unprotected — those, precisely, who need the law’s protection most! — and listens to their testimony.”

If we heed Baldwin’s call to listen to the testimonies of those who are unprotected by the law (or dehumanized precisely by the law), it leads us back to the powerful indictment of the U.S. that Frederick Douglass gave on July 5, 1852, when he asked: “What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July?

Douglass was unafraid to tell the truth about the hypocrisy inherent in the U.S.’s continued deep investment in the brutal enslavement of Black people. Douglass wrote:

The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.


Despite the State’s Attempts to Stamp Out Opposition, Our Movements Persevere
Echoes of anti-slavery and civil rights struggles reverberate through the current uprising against ICE. By Austin C. McCoy , Truthout June 19, 2026


On this July 4, I will personally continue to confront the truth that Black people in this country continue to mourn, continue to suffer under anti-Blackness, and continue to experience and resist deep forms of abjection, political threats, and the realities of anti-democratic practices. There is nothing defeatist in facing this reality — the objective is Baldwinian: to refuse illusions, to face human suffering, to tarry with the U.S.’s (largely white) narrative of “justice.” As the country celebrates 250 years of independence, I want to keep Douglass’s courage alive — his refusal to participate in empty political discourse and national pageantry.

To better understand the contemporary implications of Douglass’s powerful critique, I turned to philosopher Tim Golden, who is visiting professor of philosophy at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington. He is the editor of Racism and Resistance: Essays on Derrick Bell’s Racial Realism, and his most recent book is entitled, Frederick Douglass and the Philosophy of Religion: An Interpretation of Narrative, Art, and the Political. The interview that follows has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

George Yancy: Could you talk about Douglass’s emphasis on “the slave’s point of view” within the context of the cold existential reality of Black brutality under American slavery?

Tim Golden: When James Baldwin declares the importance of beginning with the testimony of the oppressed, he is working in the long tradition of Black political activism that dates back at least as far as Douglass, and even further. Indeed, the tradition of “the slave’s point of view,” as you put it, is present in the 18th century in the work of Phillis Wheatley, Olaudah Equiano, Jupiter Hammon, and Benjamin Banneker. This tradition continued into the 19th century in the activism of Maria Stewart, Henry Highland Garnet, and, of course, Douglass.

Douglass’s use of “the slave’s point of view” is powerful as it demonstrates the slave’s humanity while destabilizing the white gaze. To demonstrate the former is to destroy the latter, as slavery and humanity are conceptually inconsistent with one another. This conceptual inconsistency means that Black humanity produces a reality that the white gaze cannot comprehend, thus causing the white gaze to turn to a mythology of whiteness as the exclusive site of humanity to maintain its conceptual and ontological coherence. The quoted language from Douglass’s Fourth of July speech in your question refers to Douglass having a “soul,” and being concerned about the nation’s “character and conduct.” Such references indicate a Black humanity inconsistent with the white gaze. Thus, in order to sustain its pseudo-ontology, whiteness turns to a specious but powerful mythology. Indeed, such metaphysical and moral concerns of a Black mind cannot be those of chattel but rather can only be those of a human being. Douglass’s use of “the slave’s point of view” is akin to what Friedrich Nietzsche calls philosophizing “with a hammer.” One side of the hammer (the mallet) builds and the other side of the hammer (the claw) tears down. Such is the work of Douglass from the slave’s point of view: It establishes Black humanity and razes the world of the white gaze, which must then turn to mythology. It is that mythology that the Black body grapples with today.

Understanding how human beings suffer under conditions of racial terror and oppression, Frantz Fanon writes, “I want my voice to be harsh, I don’t want it to be beautiful, I don’t want it to be pure.” Speaking without equivocation, Douglass is also clear, where he writes, “I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.” Given our contemporary moment in which political dissent and critical discourse against U.S. hypocrisy is framed by many in the “highest offices” of the land as “anti-Americanism,” please explain the importance of using our “severest language” when it comes to speaking truth to power, especially given what is at stake for Black people 250 years after independence.

Using the “severest language” demands some nuance, I think. To be sure, we can think of “severest” in terms of how the language itself sounds. We see this in Black art. For example, this is found in the profanity and harsh language of hip hop and Black poetry and literature. Such language is powerful, but it comes with a profound risk: being tuned out by respectability politics. With a simple invocation of a superficial morality that confuses the effect for the cause, many who most desperately need to hear the hard speech simply do not listen to it and feel justified in ignoring it because of its delivery. Why do I say “confuses effect for the cause”? It is because the profanity complained about that inhabits Black art is not as profane as the conditions that caused the profane expression in the first place. Hence, there is a critique of rap lyrics which advocate criminal, even homicidal behavior without any critique of the systemic racism, unemployment, educational deficits, etc., that lead to perpetual police surveillance and mass incarceration in Black communities. Understood in this way, then, “severest language” comes with a risk and potential of remaining unheard because whiteness is easily masked by superficial moral “outrage” that itself is immoral.


Douglass would say to today’s white Christian nationalism what he said in 1852: Stop hiding behind abstract philosophical debate and start accepting responsibility!

Another way of understanding “severest language” is in terms of its effects rather than its delivery. While the latter runs the risk of deepening alienation, the former, often delivered ironically and thus indirectly, is no less harsh in its intended results, but can be much more effective. Here I am thinking of Douglass’s use of irony in his Fourth of July speech. There, he begins the speech in self-deprecation, claiming that he has “little experience” in public speaking, which is plainly false, as by the time of the 1852 speech, Douglass had years of public speaking experience. Douglass is not trying to be dishonest, rather he is concealing himself in rhetorical irony. Through “self-humiliation,” Douglass disarms his audience, leaving them in a disposition of pity and empathy toward him. It is this irony that the occasion of America’s anniversary demands. Douglass says, “At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm … The feeling of the nation must be quickened.” Douglass quickened national feeling through the “severest language” he could muster, albeit indirectly, through a rhetorical disarming of his audience that aligned Douglass’s words with the demands of the occasion.

As a philosopher and legal theorist, identify what you see as some of the major contradictions in this country when it comes to the U.S.’s professed ideals and its treatment of Black people. Black people continue to suffer because of the gap between such professed ideals and the hell that they catch because of a country that continues to see them as second-class citizens — indeed, as sub-persons. Do you think that the fury that informed Douglass’s speech back in 1852 remains applicable as the U.S. celebrates 250 years of independence?

Yes. The fury Douglass delivered after his rhetorical self-concealment and repositioning of whites from authority to empathy is badly needed today. The source for this must be through Black forms of speech and Black works of art. Malcolm X once criticized the Black community for having athletes and entertainers as civil rights spokespersons or leaders. Although I often agree with Malcolm X on many points and even understand to an extent his point here, it is nevertheless important to appreciate the role of Black art in the Black community’s liberation struggle. What cannot be said in political debate can often be said in elegy, as with Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit,” which is as profoundly moral and political as it is aesthetic. The song’s condemnation of the moral, spiritual, and political abomination of lynching is an act of leadership, not merely entertainment and aesthetics.

We are two Black philosophers informed by and shaped by the radical love embodied within Christianity. Yet, there are those within this country who wield Christianity as an ideological weapon in support of xenophobia, white nationalism, fanaticism, and hatred. Douglass’s critique of Christian hypocrisy under American slavery remains relevant and powerful. Speaking of those white Christian churches and white Christian devotees, he writes, “They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throne of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs.” For me, Pete Hegseth and other Christians who have religiously bought into MAGA have also stripped the love of God of its beauty. What is Hegseth but a military thug? Please speak to the continuing relevance of Douglass’s insights into the ways in which Christianity is weaponized at this moment.

Cornel West brilliantly captures the distinction between these two sorts of Christianity in his book, Democracy Matters. There, he distinguishes between “prophetic Christianity” and “Constantinian Christianity.” I think that you and I are part of the Black prophetic tradition of Christianity that speaks truth to power. The Constantinian brand of Christianity protects power from truth. West would argue that the Pete Hegseths of the world, like Constantine, appropriate the Gospel of Jesus Christ for political and military conquest, treating Christianity as a means to the end of consolidating and preserving their political influence. Douglass’s critique of Christianity is a critique of Constantine’s Christianity, not of those of the biblical prophets, who took the side of the poor and oppressed. Keeping West’s distinction in mind, we must be ever careful to separate the “sheep from the goats” in American Christianity. Douglass understood this. Hence his disclaimer at the beginning of the appendix to his 1845 narrative that he wanted to distinguish between the religion of Jesus Christ and slaveholding Christianity.

There is always the danger of presentism, but what do you think a contemporary version of Douglass’s famous 1852 speech would say to white America as it celebrates the Fourth of July with so much nationalist pride?

Substitute the conditions of chattel slavery with its legacy today — police surveillance of Black communities, mass incarceration, police killings of unarmed Black people, political polarization, the obfuscation of whiteness protecting itself in political theory, the wealth gap, the education gap, housing discrimination, the religion of whiteness in white Christian nationalism, etc. — and a contemporary iteration of Douglass’s Fourth of July critique would strike a critical, spiritual, and deeply moral tone toward today’s white Christian nationalism remarkably similar to his 1852 rhetorical masterpiece. Why? Because white Christian nationalism is heavily invested in maintaining the legacy of chattel slavery. So, to address the former is to address the latter.

In his Fourth of July speech, Douglass, just prior to his claim that the conscience of the nation needed to be “roused” and the “feeling of the nation” had to be “quickened,” criticized philosophical debate as the means for addressing the problem of chattel slavery in three ways.

First, he says: “Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery … Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood?”

Second, he says: “What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes … to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters?”

And third, he wonders if he should argue that slavery is not divine. In each of these instances, Douglass is pointing to the moral problem with the deployment of philosophical argumentation under certain situations: it makes that which ought not be debatable the subject of debate.

The freedom of humankind was true as a matter of natural law for Douglass. The very reason that revealed the natural freedom of human beings was the same reason that ought not be indulged to prove such a self-evident truth. For Douglass, to argue for the humanity of the slave or the moral wrongness of slavery would be akin to debating if a bachelor is an unmarried man. Douglass thus advances a “critique of pure reason” all his own. Like Immanuel Kant, Douglass argues that there is no need to argue or debate analytic truth. It must simply be accepted. Persistence in arguing over that which we all know to be true as a matter of natural law — the humanity of Black people — is a waste of time.

So, for Douglass, we must turn from wasting valuable time arguing about the humanity of Black people and toward more subjective matters like “rousing conscience” and “quickening feeling.” And today, Douglass’s words ring through the ages as a rebuke to the deployment of certain uses of philosophical argumentation — a rebuke to rights discourse; a rebuke to the symmetry and reciprocity of neoliberal political arrangements; a rebuke to John Rawls’s original position; a rebuke to arguing abstract ethical and legal doctrine. In short, Douglass would say to today’s white Christian nationalism what he said in 1852: Stop hiding behind abstract philosophical debate and start accepting responsibility! Douglass would quicken the national conscience and rouse the national feeling this Fourth of July by demanding deep phenomenological reflection and real existential change in American race relations and public policy. He would demand that the Constantinian Christianity of white Christian nationalism become a thing of the past. He would remind white Christian nationalists of their profound spiritual and moral failings, calling for a radical responsibility that leads to meaningful institutional change rather than a philosophically abstract obfuscation that maintains the oppressive status quo. “Enough philosophical debate!,” I can hear Douglass saying on an internet live stream. “What we need is acceptance of Black people’s humanity, followed by a plan to eliminate any law, policy, or practice that distorts their humanity, plain and simple!”

Douglass would not only have a message for white Christian nationalism; he would also have a message to rouse the conscience and quicken the feelings of the entire nation, especially Black people. Douglass would tell us that the United States Constitution belongs to everyone. He would wax eloquent about how accepting the logic of Dred Scott as a matter of ontology or being is foolish. Dred Scott, an aberrant, racist logic for some, is not the standard for all. An Afropessimist would disagree, but Douglass would remain undeterred, retorting that the very document that the Afropessimist denies can overcome the category of the slave is the same document that protects their ideas as a matter of First Amendment freedom of speech; the same document decried as irredeemably unfit for justice is the same document that applies to Black and white alike when one is arrested and charged with a crime. Yes, there are problems with the American legal system. But the very classification of circumstances as “problems” implies that things are falling short of a standard of justice, which is the Constitution itself. I can hear Douglass saying to us today, in order to quicken our national feelings and rouse our conscience that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution, while there is everything wrong with how we execute it. Dred Scott may be the way the Constitution has been misinterpreted, but its misinterpretation and distortion by some is not its futility for all.

May Douglass’s would-be Fourth of July speech this Saturday, July 4, 2026, rouse our national conscience and quicken our national feeling. We need both so badly!


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.


George Yancy

George Yancy is the Samuel Candler Dobbs professor of philosophy at Emory University and a Montgomery fellow at Dartmouth College. He is also the University of Pennsylvania’s inaugural fellow in the Provost’s Distinguished Faculty Fellowship Program (2019-2020 academic year). He is the author, editor and co-editor of over 25 books, including Black Bodies, White Gazes; Look, A White; Backlash: What Happens When We Talk Honestly about Racism in America; and Across Black Spaces: Essays and Interviews from an American Philosopher published by Rowman & Littlefield in 2020. His most recent books include a collection of critical interviews entitled, Until Our Lungs Give Out: Conversations on Race, Justice, and the Future (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023), and a coedited book (with philosopher Bill Bywater) entitled, In Sheep’s Clothing: The Idolatry of White Christian Nationalism (Roman & Littlefield, 2024).
Op-Ed

Most Empires in History Fell by Age 250. The US Is at a Weighty Crossroads.

It’s far past time to bring an end to US militarism.


July 4, 2026

This photograph shows a view of the US Navy guided-missile destroyer Farragut and the Statue of Liberty ahead of the Sail4th 250 parade of ships in New York Harbor for the United States 250th anniversary on Independence Day in New York, on July 4, 2026.ANGELA WEISS / AFP via Getty Images

As a veteran of the U.S. war on Afghanistan, I visit high schools on a regular basis to talk about the military. I try to fill in the blanks that military recruiters intentionally ignore. I find that when asked, most students can say very little about the reasons why the U.S. fights. They often wrongly assume that the U.S. fights in self-defense or to protect democracy when in reality the U.S. empire fights to control other countries’ natural resources, topple governments that refuse to submit to the will of U.S. corporations, or maintain spheres of influence in regions it has no right to be in.

Very few teenagers know that most casualties of war are innocent civilians, or that most of those who die at the hands of the U.S. military are desperately poor. Far too many high schoolers across the United States assume that the U.S. military is a force for good in the world, when in reality it nearly always plays the role of the bully. I try to explain all this in a way that doesn’t feel preachy. Most teenagers will do the opposite of what they are told when they don’t feel heard or respected! Regardless, those considering the military after graduation deserve a complete picture of what they are signing up for. No one should kill or die for reasons they don’t fully comprehend.

After my visits to these schools, I often leave lamenting the fact that, too often, young people seem to see joining the military as a default rite of passage. It is hard to know when one is officially an adult in U.S. society, given the atomization and alienation of our hyper-individualized and competitive world. It is difficult to point to any one practice, ritual, or social ceremony that acts as the finish line for childhood. The military becomes a perceived gateway into adulthood for many of us.

The U.S. is 250 years old this July 4. Normally we associate things that are 250 years old with maturity, wisdom, and structural stability — trees, architectural landmarks, giant tortoises. But the U.S. seems anything but mature and stable on its quarter of a millennium birthday. One need only look at our current administration: its impulsive wars, corruption so baked-in it’s become governance, and an inability to admit mistakes. Corporate-sponsored dirt bikes and a cage fight on the front lawn of the White House to celebrate Donald Trump’s birthday — while most people in the U.S. are struggling with inflation and basic survival — is a visual that sums up the immaturity of U.S. leadership nicely.


Normally we associate things that are 250 years old with maturity, wisdom, and structural stability — trees, architectural landmarks, giant tortoises. But the U.S. seems anything but mature and stable.

It’s important to remember that the U.S.’s instability goes much deeper than one administration. A society with such vast wealth inequality can never be stable or democratic. Materialism and consumption will always trump basic human values in such a culture. Unpopular wars will continue to be waged, and important issues such as health care, the climate, and education will be put on the back burner as long as the U.S. is governed by a handful of billionaires like Elon Musk, Miriam Edelson, and Peter Thiel, who purchase morally bankrupt politicians like candy. And yes, both Democrats and Republicans have been captured by these schoolyard bullies dressed as CEOs.


A Minute of Silence Isn’t Enough to Reflect on the US’s Death and Destruction
Let’s stop lying to ourselves on Memorial Day and instead try exploring the full truth about war in all its evil.  By Rory Fanning , Truthout May 25, 2026


Samuel Arbesman, working at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard, calculated that the average age of an empire before it dies, throughout history, has been about 220 years old. So by empire standards, the U.S. is old. But it’s old in a way that suggests why empires don’t last: they are governed by the short-sighted, selfish, and violently aggressive — adults incapable of making the choices we’d associate with wisdom or maturity. In that regard, the U.S. seems no different than any other empire. The insatiable demands of capitalism and empire have kept most U.S. leaders in a position in which the wisdom of experience and history cannot be applied, for risk of not fulfilling those demands. These are leaders who are incapable of making healthy long-term decisions that will benefit and support humanity both in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Which takes me back to the young people I speak to in high schools who see the military as a positive pathway into adulthood. More of us need to communicate to them that maturity involves much more than physical growth or strength. Maturity requires an ability to follow your heart and sense of humanity, no matter what family, friends, or society as a whole encourages. Joining the military — particularly a military that is complicit in a genocide or imperial adventures that destroy innocent lives — traps young people in a situation where they often literally cannot develop and express their maturity. I’ve spoken to too many veterans who get stuck in that moment, that day, when they carried out a horrific order. Or watched their friends die in battle. Or stormed into a house they knew they had no right being in and watched children weep from fright or even take their last breath. These U.S. soldiers, who are effectively seen as terrorists by many people across the world, become glued to a nightmarish feedback loop they can’t move on from. They feel like they will never be able to follow their hearts and sense of humanity again, because they can’t trust who they became that one day when they were 18 or 19 years old. None of this is communicated by the military recruiters.


A society with such vast wealth inequality can never be stable or democratic. Materialism and consumption will always trump basic human values in such a culture.

The U.S. is at a crossroads on its 250th birthday. Young people, with noble and honorable intentions, are looking for models to take them into adulthood and help them live their lives with decency and morality. And they are seeing very little in the way of positive examples. If we hope to defy the odds and survive as a species on this burning planet, the impulsive people we’ve elevated into leadership must be replaced by those who know and appreciate the value of human life in all of its diversity.

In recent years we’ve seen millions of people in the U.S. finally come to denounce the genocide being perpetrated against Palestinians by the Israeli military in the name of Zionism. People in the U.S. are rapidly beginning to relearn the vocabulary that identifies exploitation and oppression in their lives — a language that McCarthyism did its best to eradicate. More and more are seeing how racism, anti-immigrant hate, and sexism are used to divide and keep people distracted from oligarchs who are stealing from them. We are rejecting wars ginned up by billionaires and vicious politicians to extend the riches of empire and wipe out any potential challengers. Increasingly, people are once again identifying the failings of capitalism and the predatory nature of empire. There is strong evidence that U.S. society is beginning to grow up in spite of the leadership that is trying to keep it infantilized. A healthier rite of passage for young people is reemerging, and it involves organizing and leading a movement and culture change against the evils of empire. And that is something to celebrate!


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.


Rory Fanning

Rory Fanning walked across the United States for the Pat Tillman Foundation in 2008–2009, following two deployments to Afghanistan with the 2nd Army Ranger Battalion. He is the author of Worth Fighting For: An Army Ranger’s Journey Out of the Military and Across America, and co-author with Craig Hodges of Long Shot: The Triumphs and Struggles of an NBA Freedom Fighter. He regularly speaks at high schools and universities about his walk across the U.S. and his experience as a war resister. Follow him on Twitter: @RTFanning.
Op-Ed

Abortion Is as American as Apple Pie

Abortion has been legal in some or all parts of the country for more than 180 years of US history.

July 3, 2026

Abortion rights demonstrators gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Independence Day in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2022.STEFANI REYNOLDS / AFP via Getty Images


Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.

It has been 250 years since the U.S. declared independence at one of the most tenuous moments in our history. We now stand at another tenuous moment. With an autocrat firmly in the White House, a sycophantic legislative branch, and a judiciary dominated by far right conservatives, it feels hard to celebrate the United States and its “democracy,” which hangs by a thin thread.

In the run-up to this anniversary, patriotic reflections have abounded, whitewashing U.S. history and seeking to erase its more sinister chapters. This pageantry has also erased any mention of a positive practice that has run throughout American history — the practice of safe abortion.

That’s right, abortion has been a part of American life since the very beginning. Despite attempts by far right extremists to eradicate it out of existence and erase its history in U.S. colonial and republican history, safe abortion has been a consistent throughline over the past 250 years and beyond.

Abortion access has been decimated in recent years. Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Republican-dominated state legislatures successfully forced the closure of more than 160 abortion clinics from 2012 to 2019 alone. States like Alabama and Texas passed draconian early abortion bans, designed to force the Supreme Court to test and potentially end the constitutional right to an abortion. Finally, in June 2022, after Donald Trump successfully appointed three far right justices during his first term, Roe v. Wade fell in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Writing for the majority in the Dobbs ruling, Justice Samuel Alito argued that abortion is “entirely unknown in American law,” and the right to a legal abortion is “not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” In this interpretation, Alito, as he so often finds himself, is flat-out wrong.


Battle Over Medication Abortion Threatens to Revert US Back to 19th Century
SCOTUS has temporarily paused a Fifth Circuit Court ruling that echoed the Comstock Act of 1873, an anti-obscenity law. By Emma Cieslik , Truthout May 19, 2026


Abortion, a matter of individual liberty and personhood, isn’t just foundational based on the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which established the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It was also common, legal, and acceptable across communities and states throughout the colonial era and the first half-century of the U.S. republic.


Benjamin Franklin, the man who graces our $100 bill, didn’t just endorse safe abortion — he helped teach people how to do it themselves.

Colonial American life included abortion. It was so common and acceptable that the venerated Benjamin Franklin intentionally added information on how to perform an at-home abortion to a reference book he published, The American Instructor, reprinting within it recipes for herbal abortifacients and contraceptives from a 1734 medical handbook entitled Every Man His Own Doctor: The Poor Planter’s Physician. Benjamin Franklin, the man who graces our $100 bill, didn’t just endorse safe abortion — he helped teach people how to do it themselves.

In the late 18th century and early 19th century, abortion was legal and acceptable to the point of quickening, or when the pregnant person can feel the fetus move. This occurs during the second trimester of pregnancy, typically from 16-20 weeks into a pregnancy. With little in the way of scientific methods for determining how long a pregnancy was, quickening was the most common and often the only surefire way to determine whether a person was pregnant. And because abortions were largely performed by midwives or Indigenous healers — trusted, community-based experts and providers of care — abortion was typically kept in the realm of women’s work. This also helped enslaved women inhibit pregnancy and have abortions through their private use of cotton; enslavers knew little to nothing about the herbal remedies for unwanted pregnancy that were known among African and Indigenous healers. Enslaved women would chew cotton root and bark to resist childbearing following sexual assault by their enslavers. Abortion was a key means of asserting the little independence that enslaved women could claim.

The nation’s first abortion ban was not enacted until 1821, nearly a half-century after the U.S. declared independence, when Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of “poison” to cause a miscarriage. This could have been targeted at midwives and Indigenous healers who had, for centuries, used natural herbs to induce abortions. Regardless of its target, it marked the first time in U.S. history that abortion, in any way, had been criminalized.

Abortion bans began to spread not because of hostility to the procedure, but hostility to those who provided them. Midwives and Indigenous healers were the trusted experts, and as physicians began to establish themselves as the sole health care authorities, abortion came under scrutiny. With the establishment of the American Medical Association in 1847, physicians began a coordinated campaign to smear midwives and criminalize abortion, a procedure they were unable to perform. It took time, but by 1910, abortion was banned nationwide.


For as long as this country has been here, and even before its founding, people on this land have been providing and having safe abortions. That is a history worth celebrating.

However, that means that for more than 130 years after the nation’s founding, abortion was legal in some parts of the country. That’s more than half of our entire history. Add to that the years that abortion was protected nationwide by Roe v. Wade, from 1973 to 2022, and abortion has been legal in some or all parts of the country for more than 180 years of U.S. history. And yet Justice Alito and far right ideologues have erased this overwhelming part of the country’s history from our story.

It is essential that people in the U.S. embrace the real history and legacy of abortion, one that is foundational to realizing the much-lauded ideals of liberty and independence. If this milestone feels difficult to celebrate, remember this: For as long as this country has been here, and even before its founding, people on this land have been providing and having safe abortions. That is a history worth celebrating.


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.



Lauren Rankin

Lauren Rankin is the author of Bodies on the Line: At the Front Lines of the Fight to Protect Abortion in America, about the legacy of everyday volunteers on the fight for abortion right. Her writing has been featured at the Washington Post, The Cut, Fast Company, Slate, Teen Vogue, TIME, and many more. She spent six years as a clinic escort in New Jersey and is on the board of A is For, a reproductive rights advocacy nonprofit.




Taxpayer-Funded 250th Anniversary Group Pushes AI Slop to Whitewash US History

In a slop video shared by Freedom 250, an AI-generated John Adams spews the catchphrases of a 21st-century right-winger.

July 3, 2026
Freedom250 hats and other souvenirs are seen for sale during Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise and Thanksgiving, on the National Mall, on May 17, 2026, in Washington, D.C.Graeme Sloan / Getty Images

When the America 250 Civics Education Coalition launched last fall, it brought the U.S. Department of Education into partnership with several right-wing organizations with the aim of “renewing patriotism, strengthening knowledge and advancing a shared understanding of America’s founding principles in schools across the nation.” Primary sponsors of the coalition include the America First Policy Institute, Turning Point USA, and Hillsdale College, as well as additional supporting partners such as the Heritage Foundation, Moms for Liberty, PragerU, and Priests for Life.

In a press conference to announce the launch of the ongoing educational campaign, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon made clear that she believes there’s a need to boost civics education in U.S. schools. “Civic knowledge, engagement and Constitutional literacy among our youth — I’m going to say it’s in decline,” she said. “I can almost say it is absent and we have to really refocus on this.”

“Why don’t these young people love America, or why aren’t they proud to be Americans? It’s because they don’t know America,” she railed. “We haven’t taught them about America. They don’t know our history. They don’t know the trials and tribulations that led to this being the most wonderful country on the face of the earth.”

Now, as the U.S. gears up to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a range of political and social justice organizations and educators are contesting what that history looks like.

The history of the right’s efforts is murky. The education initiative follows the 2016 establishment by Congress of the nonprofit America250, which was charged with planning celebrations for the semiquincentennial. The initiative has brought together corporate sponsors — including Amazon, Boeing, Palantir, and Oracle — with a host of congressional representatives, current and former members of government, and private citizens.

The Road to Liberty series, produced in conjunction with the White House, features AI-generated figures like George Washington offering Trump-friendly “history” lessons that blend quotes from primary sourcing with fiction.

The corporate nature of the nonprofit can be found in its programming. For example, one of its main educational components is America’s Field Trip, a competition that was connected to America250 classroom instruction. The competition asked students in grades 3-12 to write essays about “what America means to them.” One hundred and twenty-five first-prize winners — and their chaperones — were recently awarded what was billed as “an unforgettable field trip and experience at some of the nation’s most iconic historical and cultural landmarks,” including Mount Rushmore and Yellowstone National Park, as well as institutions such as the George W. Bush Presidential Center and Library and the Coca-Cola headquarters. Suggested lessons feature documents like the Bill of Rights, the Preamble to the Constitution, and the Constitution itself, and zero in on encouraging community engagement, from celebrating business and (certain) community leaders to removing litter from local parks and communities. The Bank of New York was the field trip’s financial sponsor, and the trip was promoted as “inspiring the next generation to continue the [nation’s] long history of innovation.”


But, not content with America250, Donald Trump launched (to much confusion) his own competing initiative last year: Freedom 250. While both organizations are receiving taxpayer funding, the Trump administration has directed funding toward his preferred organization, NOTUS has reported. Freedom 250 is perhaps most known for Rededicate 250, a prayer event on the National Mall, as well as a concert series that swiftly fell apart when numerous musicians dropped out almost as soon as the lineup was announced. But the initiative has also included its own “Story of America” history lessons, developed by the conservative Christian Hillsdale College. Among them is a video about the “faith of our founders” that offers a Christian nationalist perspective on the separation of church and state.

A video purporting to speak for John Adams features the quotation “facts do not care about your feelings” — a common refrain from right-wing provocateur and PragerU contributor Ben Shapiro.

Hillsdale is a member of the America 250 Civics Education Coalition, as is the right-wing digital media outlet PragerU, whose Road to Liberty videos are featured on the Freedom 250 website. That series, produced in conjunction with the White House, features AI-generated figures like George Washington offering Trump-friendly “history” lessons that blend quotes from primary sourcing with fiction. As NPR pointed out, for example, a video purporting to speak for John Adams features the quotation “facts do not care about your feelings” — a common refrain from right-wing provocateur and PragerU contributor Ben Shapiro.

A Return to the “Great Man Theory” of History

Joseph A. McCartin, professor of history at Georgetown University and co-director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor, called the Freedom 250 resources a “coloring book version of U.S. history” and a “simplified and truncated version of developments that remove the complex questions that have shaped our history.” It focuses on “the great man theory of history,” he said, centering George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams as an exclusive band of founding heroes.

But McCartin notes that who — and what — is left out is as important as who and what is included.

As a history instructor, he said he’s observed that students are often stunned to learn that many Black people sided with the British during the revolutionary period, as Britain had promised them their freedom. “If you do not understand this, you can’t really understand America,” McCartin told Truthout. “The world’s oldest constitutional democracy includes many rich, but contradictory impulses. The statement that all men are created equal, with inalienable rights, is something the founders said was provided, but it was not actually true. It took until women’s suffrage and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [which has since been eviscerated] for the U.S. to take steps toward becoming a multiracial democracy.”

“Students need to ask how many of the framers of the Constitution were enslavers or financial supporters of enslavement. They need to ask why women weren’t listed as writers of these documents.”

Mimi Eisen, program manager at the Zinn Education Project, agrees and told Truthout that contesting the mythology surrounding the U.S. founding requires challenging the idea that “while the founders were men of their time, they were also geniuses who set us on a path to freedom.”

The kinds of educational material being shared ahead of the semiquincentennial, she said, perpetuates this myth.

Moreover, some of the lessons go beyond the schoolhouse, with messaging that is geared to adults as well their kids. Among them are Freedom Trucks, an interactive “history exhibit” seen in mobile trailers that are on a nationwide tour. The trucks are part of Trump’s Freedom 250 programming, and include video content developed by PragerU and Hillsdale College.

“The Freedom Trucks that are traveling all over the country use AI-generated videos to present Thomas Jefferson saying that westward expansion was necessary to create an empire of liberty,” Eisen explained. Take this statement from a PragerU video — in the Road to Liberty series — that purports to be from the perspective of Thomas Jefferson, in which the AI-generated portrayal of Jefferson says freedom does not depend on force but on the cultivation of an enlightened mind. “This statement is coming from someone who enslaved more than 600 people over his lifetime and relied on force to control them,” Eisen said. “The messaging that the video delivers is a fairy tale that rests on a conception of liberty and freedom that excludes Indigenous people and Black people. It’s an affront to history.”

Eisen also criticized the cherry-picked quotations in Road to Liberty materials. For example, she said PragerU’s lesson on Black poet Phillis Wheatley’s 1774 letter to Native American pastor Samson Occom highlights Wheatley’s recognition of a universal love of freedom but leaves out the letter’s condemnation of white colonists who supported their own freedom from England while simultaneously supporting slavery for Black people. Wheatley’s blistering condemnation of their hypocrisy, Eisen says, changes the meaning of the lesson.

Teaching Toward Freedom

A fuller explanation of Wheatley’s impassioned writing is included in a 51-page curriculum that Eisen, Bill Bigelow, and other Zinn Education Project historians and scholars have created. They present the entirety of the letter in their materials on the American Revolution, inviting teachers and students to look beyond the “founding fathers,” Constitution, and Declaration of Independence. Accounts from enslaved people, poor white farmers, Native people, and women — Quaker poet Hannah Griffitts, activist Belinda Sutton, and members of the Creek, Chickasaw, and Cherokee nations, among them — give students a more detailed and accurate look at the 18th century.

These accounts are essential to a full understanding of the past, Adam Sanchez, managing editor of Rethinking Schools magazine, told Truthout. Ignoring or sanitizing Indigenous, female, or enslaved voices stops teachers from presenting the truth about the foundational role of racism, sexism, and homophobia in U.S. history. “Over the past half-century, we have seen people of color and LGBTQIA+ people make leaps forward,” Sanchez said, calling the kinds of materials included in the America250 commemorations “part of the backlash to these organizing efforts.”

“We know that the American Revolution had roots in anti-colonial revolt against the British, but we also know that enslavers were rebelling against restrictions on slavery that the British wanted to impose. History is not just one story, and understanding the debates that took place engages students,” he said.

The right’s focus on spectacular events like the Boston Tea Party, Sanchez continued, ignores large swaths of the population, “some of whom aligned with the American Revolution and some of whom did not.” Sanchez sees the unwillingness to teach multiple perspectives or go beyond an oversimplified idea of loyalists and patriots as particularly damaging. “Ironically,” he added, “the right is pushing a political agenda while those of us in the progressive education community are working to give students a broader sense of the American Revolution and are asking them to consider what freedom meant, and continues to mean, to different people.”

Historian Barbara Winslow, professor emerita of education and women’s studies at Brooklyn College, said critical questions should be central to all lessons about the U.S. founding. “Students need to know why the Constitution was written, when it was written, and who wrote it,” she told Truthout. “They also need to ask how many of the framers of the Constitution were enslavers or financial supporters of enslavement. They need to ask why women weren’t listed as writers of these documents. They then need to delve into why these factors are important.”


“Students need to question what the framers meant when they wrote the phrase all men are created equal. Was it really all men, or was it just men of property?”

Winslow added that a proper curriculum would also probe the reason the Bill of Rights was added, which is largely missing from the various official America250 curricula. “Students should know that some states said they would not ratify the Constitution unless individual rights were guaranteed and protected,” she explains. “Some colonists feared federal authority, and it is important for students to understand that the idea of federal authority was widely debated. Yes, Jefferson and others wrote a monumentally important document that was cited by Ho Chi Minh, Susan B. Anthony, and Martin Luther King Jr., and while it includes a universal promise of liberty, students need to question what the framers meant when they wrote the phrase all men are created equal. Was it really all men, or was it just men of property?”

Winslow, Eisen, McCartin, and Sanchez know that students benefit from unvarnished, multitiered, and nuanced accounts of history that encourage students to ask questions, read primary source materials, and learn about efforts to promote social change. The Zinn Education Project, The Kalmanovitz Initiative, the Labor and Working-Class History Association, and other pro-labor groups have launched the #Peoples250 project. They are inviting people to submit short videos using the hashtag to social media in order to complicate and challenge official accounts of history and inform viewers of all ages about past and current organizing and resistance movements. To date, videos have been posted on the legacy of muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair, a successful campaign to unionize a popular Washington, D.C., restaurant, and organizing to remove a statue of white supremacist George Rogers Clark from the University of Virginia campus.

“Teachers want honest materials that tells a truthful story,” Eisen says. “They want materials that includes people who have been critical of the unequal state of things throughout our country’s history. They want materials about the long struggle for freedom.”


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.


Eleanor J. Bader

Eleanor J. Bader is a Brooklyn, New York-based freelance writer who focuses on domestic social issues and resistance movements. In addition to Truthout, she writes for The Progressive, Ms. Magazine, Lilith, The Indypendent, New Pages and other progressive blogs and print publications.
PELOSI CAR CRASH
Law enforcement considering criminally charging Nancy Pelosi’s husband: report

Alexander Willis
July 4, 2026 
RAW STORY




Former Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband Paul Pelosi arrive to attend the State Dinner hosted by President Biden for India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the White House in Washington, U.S., June 22, 2023. REUTERS/Julia Nikhinson/File Photo

Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), could face criminal charges over a vehicle incident that occurred Friday in Northern California, The New York Times reported Saturday.

According to a news release from the Napa County Sheriff’s Office, Mr. Pelosi is under investigation as the driver of a vehicle that struck a parked vehicle before “leaving the scene,” the Times reported. Pelosi told investigators that “he knew he had hit something but didn’t know what and that he kept driving his car, which stopped running a short time later,” the Times reported.

Given Mr. Pelosi’s age of 86, the sheriff’s office plans to submit a request to the Department of Motor Vehicles to evaluate his ability to drive, per the Times.

“Mr. Pelosi has been involved in other car crashes, one as a teenager and another four years ago,” the Times’ report reads.

“When he was 16, he was behind the wheel of a car that crashed. His brother, a passenger, was killed. In 2022, he pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol in connection with a crash in Napa County.”
Medical expert sounds alarm that Mitch McConnell is 'unfit to serve'

SCHRODINGER'S McCONNELL 
IS HE DEAD OR ALIVE?!



Mitch McConnell was hospitalized 2 weeks ago. We still don’t know Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., May 19, 2026. REUTERS/Tom Brennerwhy
July 04, 2026 
ALTERNET


Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's staff claims that his health is improving after a recent emergency hospital trip, but as one medical expert argued, his situation means that he is overall "unfit to serve" the rest of his term in office.

McConnell is a long-tenured Senator from Kentucky, best known for his many years as the GOP's Senate majority leader, where he used blunt and controversial tactics to block the agendas of Democratic presidents and Congresses. Having handed off that role to Sen. John Thune, he is set to retire in January, opting not to seek reelection in the 2026 midterms.

While he, 84, might be on his way out, McConnell's final years and months in office have seen him beset by highly publicized health issues, raising concerns about how his advanced age is impeding his ability to serve. Most recently, reports emerged in mid-June that he was found unconscious and rushed to the hospital, and he has not been seen in public since. While his staff has insisted that he is on the mend, the situation has nonetheless prompted speculation that he is near death, or dead already.


In a video shared this week, Hilary Shae, a licensed speech-language pathologist and political content creator, discussed the odd situation surrounding McConnell and argued that he should not serve out the remainder of his term in the Senate. As a medical professional, Shae specializes in concussion recovery, with her political commentary being focused on giving professional insights into President Donald Trump's signs of physical and cognitive decline.

"Even if he is alive, he is unfit to serve, and he should not be finishing out his term through January," Shae said. "Mitch McConnell is 84 years old, and his health history is not good. He has a history of multiple falls — one of which was significant for concussion — and what appeared to be TIAs, or transient ischemic attacks, and it does not appear that he really came back to his full self. He did not return to his baseline after his concussion."


She noted further that McConnell's symptoms from his most recent episodes, including cardiac arrest and being unresponsive, indicated that he was potentially not getting enough oxygen to his brain, a part of his body that had already been through significant stress from his falls. She said that, if she were a professional working with the senator as a patient, she would have major concerns about how returning to work might impede his ability to recover, and would recommend that, given his age and history, he retire "immediately."

Shae suggested that those around McConnell are playing a "political game" with him, trying to keep him alive and in office until the end of his term to prevent the possibility of a Democrat taking his seat. If he were to pass away or resign prior to the end of his term, McConnell's seat would be filled by Kentucky's governor, Andy Beshear, a Democrat.

"And I think we're playing the same game with Donald Trump," she added. "Keep Trump alive until January, and then no one will give a s——t what happens to him, because then if he dies, that means JD Vance can come in and be [president], and they think he can actually get elected to more terms. Sure, okay."


Trump flunky to axe career veterans over 'deep state' conspiracies



July 03, 2026 
ALTERNET


Reports have surfaced over the past several weeks about intelligence experts being fired from their posts working with the Director of National Intelligence. Now, it turns out he's firing people outside of his purview as well.

MS NOW reporter Vaughn Hillyard told the network that initially, the firings were focused on political appointees, but now the analysts themselves believe these new firings are the big next step in cleaning house.

Acting Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte was the initial nominee, but Trump withdrew his name from consideration. The second nominee he stopped from testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Trump said he wanted Pulte to clean house first.

Pulte "could expect to serve in this capacity for several months while another individual whom [Trump] has put forward as a nominee for the full-time position goes through a confirmation process," said Hillyard.

When Trump said he would nominate Pulte, there was a huge backlash from lawmakers, including Republicans, saying that they would fight the nomination. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act gives a 210-day limit to acting officials in Senate-confirmed positions.

Among the first acts Pulte took before his first day was to demand a list of people to be fired.

"Those individuals are the ones [who] are being terminated," said Hillyard. "These are not just political appointees, but these are career officials."

Senators have expressed hefty concern over the past several weeks, fearful that Pulte will weaken national security because he has little understanding of the agency or intelligence in general.

"I am told by an intelligence official who is remaining anonymous out of fear of reprisal," that these firings will continue. "I am told that there are individuals who they claim are, 'Part of the deep state, withholding information related to intelligence that has been requested by leadership at the DNI'," Hillyard reported.

Hillyard, working with MS NOW's David Rhode, said that it's important to understand the context and that intelligence officials within the office have never heard of anything like this happening with the DNI or any of the 15 other agencies, including the CIA. Career officials simply don't withhold requested information.

"I'm told by one official that the terminations are happening out of a belief by leadership at the DNI, including from Bill Pulte, that those [who] are being removed are individuals who they suspect of being a part of the so-called 'deep state' and are not providing the full picture of intelligence assessments under their purview. And so there's going to be a lot of questions here," Hillyard continued.

He reinforced that the matter was not normal, and it comes at a time when DNI officials are concerned about foreign governments meddling in the 2026 midterm elections.

The number of dismissed career officials and DNI experts is expected to be in the dozens, Hillyard closed.