Friday, February 07, 2025

LA Fires Didn’t Discriminate in Their Destruction — But Recovery Efforts Could


Amid rent gouging, land speculators and insurance woes, the cost of rebuilding may exceed working people’s means.
February 5, 2025

An aerial image shows homes damaged and destroyed by the Eaton Fire in the Altadena neighborhood of Los Angeles County, California, on January 30, 2025.PATRICK T. FALLON / AFP via Getty Images

The Pacific Palisades, Eaton, Hurst, and other fires this winter have brought unfathomable loss to Los Angeles County and marred the new year for many — erasing seaside mansions in the well-heeled Palisades as eagerly as they did less opulent homes in the vibrant historically Black community of Altadena. Still, as attentions turn to rebuilding and recovery, all victims, as Angelenos made equal in loss and grief, may well find their fortunes once again separated out by class and race, like particles strained through successive filters.

These social filtering mechanisms arise in various guises: a flooded rental market ripe for price gouging, the unaffordability of legal representation for claimants to press for insurance payouts, and the risky deals on offer from speculators who have descended to cajole residents into selling burned lots for cheap. For some, their unburned wealth will ease them through legal, financial and bureaucratic barriers to recovery. Other families, like homeowning working people, may have to settle for merely cutting their already disastrous losses.

While the fires were undiscriminating, the city they burned was not. The effects of historical redlining created the Altadena neighborhood, with a population 58 percent people of color. It subsequently thrived — but now, a UCLA study found, its older Black homeowners have been disproportionately harmed by the Eaton Fire. And across burned areas, low-income jobs held by people of color might be permanently eradicated — as many as 35,000 positions. Unfortunately, just as the losses have been, the recoveries will also be marked by unequal realities. Nevertheless, a broad field of local organizers is activating to counteract forms of exploitation that, while exacerbated in the wake of the fires, long preceded their first sparks.

Gouged Out of the Market

Prior to the fires, Los Angeles was already wracked by multiple interlocking housing crises — crises of unaffordable rents, insufficient affordable housing and resultant homelessness, which has reached staggering extents. Now, with tens of thousands of structures destroyed, losses of both housing and employment have sent innumerable desperate people rushing into a constricted market.

Less scrupulous landlords saw opportunity: Rents have been documented rising by leaps and bounds, increasing by 50 percent or more in some egregious cases. This level of price gouging in a market that was already widely unaffordable ensures that the wealthiest victims, able to absorb usurious rates, will be the first in line for shelter.

Related Story

Insurers Are Abandoning Homeowners Over Wildfire Risk But Investing in Big Oil
The firms invested half a trillion in fossil fuels, stoking the crisis that led them to dump thousands of homeowners. By Derek Seidman , Truthout January 30, 2025


Estuardo Mazariegos is the co-director of the Los Angeles office of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), a grassroots nonprofit that organizes communities of color to advocate against housing exploitation, among other injustices. Truthout reached Mazariegos to better understand what sorts of inequalities might mark Los Angeles’s period of fire recovery and housing reconstruction.

Obviously, people with lower incomes are soon weeded out of rental markets at their currently exorbitant rates. But there are knock-on effects as well: “There’s definitely a strain on the overall community because of the impact. Children not going to school, folks finding it harder to get their documentation, finding it harder to access the services that they need. So definitely, lower-income folks have a harder time recovering and finding housing afterwards,” Mazariegos noted.

California Penal Code 396 prohibits price gouging (for rent, defined as increases over 10 percent) during a declared emergency. The state appears to be holding to it: Attorney General Rob Bonta announced he would be pursuing price-gouging landlords; his office has sent hundreds of warning letters, and is beginning to bring forth charges in a couple of cases for violation of the gouging statute.

Rents have been documented rising by leaps and bounds, increasing by 50 percent or more in some egregious cases.

To dissuade gouging, though, the state must be aware of it, and oversight capabilities are limited. Citizen reports have proven essential. It certainly helps make a case against gougers that listings on the popular rental site Zillow contain a price history. Making use of this and other public information, a group of Angelenos — tenant organizers, outraged homeowners, data gatherers, and other volunteers — have united against gouging under the banner of the Rent Brigade.

The Brigade enlists volunteers to seek out and document illegal price increases of over 10 percent and report them to the state. On January 27, the Rent Brigade released a report indicating a 5,065 percent increase in gouging over 11 days, with new listings also appearing far over fair market value.

The chance to profit is also leading some impatient landlords to attempt to evict longtime tenants, who are more likely to have rent stabilization and other protections, so that new tenants can be brought in at a higher rate. To do so, some resort to outright tenant harassment — an astonishingly callous tactic, and a very real problem. The post-fire gouging “results in a secondary outcome: an increase in the harassment of tenants throughout the city to have them self-evict,” said Mazariegos.

Chelsea Kirk is an organizer with the LA Tenants Union and a researcher with Strategic Actions for a Just Economy; she is also one of the advocates spearheading the Rent Brigade effort. Reached for comment, Kirk talked about what her volunteers are seeing and expanded on the Rent Brigade’s current efforts to confront the second-order evictions problem: “We began by tracking instances of rent gouging, and are now crowdsourcing data on evictions, because elected officials aren’t seeing the people being indirectly displaced by the fires. Their stories are being crowded out.”
Wild Speculation

Of course, in crisis, there is opportunity; this is the logic of “disaster capitalism,” also known as the “shock doctrine,” in Naomi Klein’s famous formulation. It’s appearing here in the form of speculators seeking to snap up damaged lots on the cheap. Their approach capitalizes on desperation — a pressing uncertainty among many fire victims that their losses will be remunerated, thanks to the tenuous conditions in insurance — as well as, perhaps, an instinct to strike while fire victims are still in an emotionally vulnerable state, more likely to hastily accede to a devil’s bargain.

Mazariegos confirmed hearing reports of residents receiving unprompted cold calls with lowball offers. “It’s unfathomable, and unconscionable, that folks are getting calls after they lose their entire life’s work,” he said. “Folks are recovering from a moment of ultimate loss.”

It’s not entirely clear who these interests are in every case — but what most concerns Mazariegos and his fellow advocates is the possible intrusion of private equity, already a voracious acquisitor of housing for investment purposes. “We’re on guard right now and really monitoring the situation in burned places, and checking in with folks who are organizing on the ground, seeing who’s calling up [to make underpriced offers], to figure out if it’s private equity. That’s one of the things we’re all concerned about.”


“We began by tracking instances of rent gouging, and are now crowdsourcing data on evictions.”


Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office has stepped in to aid with both the speculation and the price-gouging by issuing two executive orders, a three-month ban on unsolicited below-market offers and a rent increase cap, respectively; the latter order will also help create more temporary housing. These are welcome reprieves. (In addition, Los Angeles City Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Hugo Soto-Martínez have advanced a local motion seeking a yearlong moratorium on evictions and rent hikes.) Still, as Mazariegos pointed out, “This was not necessarily done only because Gavin Newsom did so out of the kindness of his heart. It was community members that stepped up to the plate and said, ‘You need to do something about it now.’”

ACCE helped advocate that the government adopt these protections as part of the Keep LA Housed Coalition, which includes several major advocacy groups. They’re also calling for “a rent freeze and other tenant resources and petitions to keep tenants housed,” as well as better protections and enforcement, Mazariegos said. It’s also worth noting, as Schuyler Mitchell did for Truthout, that a vast network of mutual aid efforts, with varying degrees of official organization, have arisen to help lift up their neighbors in need.


Insured and Unsure


Those who have lost homes face a grim choice: whether to find a home elsewhere and leave behind their community, or stay to face what could well be a grueling rebuilding process.

Blair Miller is the principal project coordinator of the City of Los Angeles’s Economic and Workforce Development Department, leading the department’s real estate group; she is also a former member of the Pasadena Planning Commission and a board member of Heritage Housing Partners, an affordable housing preservation nonprofit. On a call with Truthout, Miller laid out the barriers to reconstruction. She spoke chiefly to concerns in the historic Altadena neighborhood, where she lives. Her own home was very nearly lost in the Eaton Fire. “Altadena was an extremely special place,” she said. “It’s really sad, and I’m not sure what to do about it except to feel sad.”

Many families of color bought homes in Altadena to escape redlining in the 1960s and 70s — far enough back that, by now, many own their houses outright. For many, the fires represent the destruction of life savings and inheritances: wealth that was intended to be amassed generationally, providing descendants with more ease. Miller agreed that while local developers are not necessarily the ones to blame, the lowballing speculators do pose a threat: “When you’re talking about speculative buyers or homebuilders, yeah, there’s gotta be an army of people out there trying to take advantage.” Those types of wheeler-dealers are likely there to quickly flip lots for a profit — in large part, they’re probably “not the same developers who will eventually build,” she believes.

For those who do want to stay and rebuild, insurance may simply not make up the full difference. “Here’s the first problem: People aren’t insured enough to rebuild,” explained Miller. The building costs were at about $500 or $600 per square foot for single-family homes in the area. Those costs are really, really likely to go up. There’s competition for building materials and for labor.”

Some claimants will have riders allowing them to retroactively establish they were not informed that they were underinsured — but those who don’t, Miller added, “are not going to be able to fight their insurance companies, so they’re just going to wind up with not enough money.” There is some chance of state intervention. So far, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara did issue guidance that mandates insurance companies at least provide advance claim payments to victims — though not all are receiving them.

Still, many policyholders, lacking various insurance protections, may also face an insurmountable leap in premiums. Many will be forced to turn to the expensive, low-benefits California FAIR Plan — and even that backup plan’s continued existence as a solvent entity is in major doubt.


The Inevitable Trade-Offs

Rebuilding efforts will form a nexus where various state practices and developer incentives intersect — a balancing act involving calculated trade-offs. First, homeowners and/or developers will face a permitting process that, even “prior to this,” said Miller, “was just a nightmare.” She described an outsourced permitting department with poor interagency communication, which often left would-be builders frustrated. “If the permit process were to continue [post-fire] at the rate it was before, that would push the rebuilding process out to 10 or 15 years.”

That’s a remarkably long time — and an entirely nonviable wait for most. Nevertheless, in the absence of reform, permitting will remain worryingly impaired. Improvements to agency processes are doubly necessary, added Miller, because, “unless you have a group of trained professionals [at agencies] who are empowered to hold the speculators to design standards, then speculators are just going to get ticky-tacky cheap options approved, and throw them up.”

The results of such quick and dirty profiteering would be a blow to a neighborhood’s character, and likely value as well. Yet issues abound should the opposite approach be indulged too far: As Miller said, “If you put lots of design review on it, then people who do want to do good stuff are going to get stuck in this system that was already taking way too long.”

Other trade-offs will involve hedging safety costs against inevitable future fires. There are certain construction decisions that increase fire safety and are more or less zero-cost. But there’s a spectrum of protection: Adding metal roofs and fireproof windows, Miller pointed out, would expand costs considerably. Should such measures be mandated? If they are, “because of the competition for labor and materials, [costs] could go way higher than that,” she said.

“Here’s the first problem: People aren’t insured enough to rebuild.”


Rebuilding in exurban areas now known to be risky involves still more difficult decisions. “Parts of Altadena that burned are very much up in the hills. Are they allowed to build back? Can they ever get insurance?” Miller asked rhetorically. The same question will arise for some of the ultrawealthy-owned properties, which in general are more commonly found at the “wildlife-urban interface,” that were lost in the Palisades fires.

However these tensions play out, it’s evident that the wealthy are better poised to navigate them. “They’ll have the ability to hire an architect and a contractor,” noted Miller. “Because they’ll be ready faster, they’ll be able to get to the front of the line. So, they’ll probably be building faster, unless the county does something to take care of that.”

In other words, a capricious process of bureaucracy, claims and counterclaims by various stakeholders, warped incentives to profit and a complex set of cross purposes will be set in motion as Los Angeles County neighborhoods rebuild — a process that will inevitably disadvantage and frustrate many fire victims. Throughout it all, as in so many other realms of this world, the very wealthy will quickly find themselves at considerable advantage.

As the bitterly familiar result of inequality, it seems evident that the residents who populated beautiful neighborhoods like Altadena, especially the less wealthy and people of color, are less likely to come through the process to their benefit — and less likely to regain what they’ve so painfully lost.

“Yes, there is an immediate need and impact in the burned areas,” Mazariegos said of the crisis. “But this is just like throwing a rock in a pond. There are ripples, and the ripples are starting to be felt across the region. And it’s low-income people and communities who have been historically underinvested … that will feel these effects the most.”


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.


Tyler Walicek is a freelance writer and journalist in Portland, Oregon.


Murder of the Dead. First Published: Battaglia Comunista No. 24 1951; Source ... murderer also of the dead: “But as soon as people, whose production ...




FASCISM OPPOSES HUMAN  & CIVIL RIGHTS

Trump Administration Plans Criminal Investigations Into Corporate DEIA Programs


The attorney general’s directive sparks concerns over the Trump administration’s impact on civil rights protections.
Truthout
February 6, 2025

Pam Bondi, President-elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the Justice Department as attorney general, listens during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on January 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Jabin Botsford / The Washington Post via Getty Images


On Wednesday evening, newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi distributed over a dozen memos to multiple divisions within the Department of Justice (DOJ), including one signaling that private-sector DEI initiatives may face potential criminal investigation under a recent executive order by President Donald Trump.

“President Trump issued Executive Order 14173 … making clear that policies relating to ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (“DEI”) and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (“DEIA”) ‘violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws’ and ‘undermine our national unity,’” the memo states.

Trump’s Executive Order 14173 mandates the dismantling of DEI programs within the federal government and halts related hiring, mischaracterizing these initiatives as discriminatory. It also directs executive branch agencies to aggressively scrutinize private-sector DEI efforts through civil compliance investigations.

While legal experts emphasize that “[w]ithout congressional action, the DEI Executive Orders alone won’t dismantle existing federal antidiscrimination laws,” civil rights advocates warn that recent actions by the Trump administration show that it is weaponizing these laws against the very groups they were designed to protect.

“[T]he administration is not only undoing decades of federal anti-discrimination policy, spanning Democratic and Republican presidential administrations alike, but also marshalling federal enforcement agencies to bully both private and government entities into abandoning legal efforts to promote equity and remedy systemic discrimination,” ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, wrote in a commentary about the order.

Related Story

Trump Orders Federal Agencies to Prepare to Fire Workers in DEI Programs
The order ignores several studies that show DEI’s benefits and baselessly claims such programs create more prejudice. By Chris Walker , Truthout January 22, 2025


For instance, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was established under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to investigate discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, and other protected characteristics, has announced plans to scale back enforcement of policies protecting transgender people since Trump’s inauguration. It also recently instructed staff to stop processing LGBTQ-related discrimination complaints. Similarly, last month, Acting Labor Secretary Vincent Micone issued a directive instructing the Department of Labor to “immediately cease and desist” enforcing anti-discrimination and affirmative action requirements for government contractors, in compliance with Trump’s anti-DEI order.

Now, Bondi’s anti-DEI directive, issued in accordance with Trump’s executive order, instructs the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — historically tasked with safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups — and the Office of Legal Policy to take action against private companies that prioritize workforce diversity through DEIA programs. The directive sets a March 1 deadline for these departments to submit a report with their “recommendations” on how to “encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including policies relating to DEI and DEIA.”





The memo requests a list of business “sectors of concern within the Department of Justice” and seeks to identify the “most egregious and discriminatory DEI and DEIA practitioners in each sector.” It also calls for details on “litigation activities” and “other strategies” to act against private companies implementing DEIA programs.

Additionally, Bondi’s memo states that the DOJ will coordinate with the Department of Education to ensure that universities comply with the Trump administration’s new anti-DEIA mandate.

“It is clear as someone who studies Black critiques of white supremacy — framed by Republicans as DEI — that this Trump admin initiative could very easily result in criminal penalties for those researching & teaching [about] regimes of oppression & movements for liberation,” historian William Horne said on Bluesky. “A criminalization of critique.”

The directive further suggests that certain private companies could face criminal penalties for their DEIA initiatives. Bondi specifically instructs the Civil Rights Division and the Office of Legal Policy to outline “specific steps or measures to deter the use of DEI and DEIA programs or principles,” including “proposals for criminal investigations and for up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” targeting companies within the identified “sectors of concern.”

“They are seeking to criminalize integration efforts across public life. We must be clear eyed and direct about what’s happening here,” investigative journalist Nikole Sheri Hannah-Jones said on Bluesky. “We have not witnessed this blatant of a comprehensive governmental attack on integration since the Civil Rights Movement.”

These aggressive measures have already drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, who argue that the Trump administration may be overstepping its constitutional boundaries. For example, Slate jurisprudence writers Jeremy Stahl and Mark Joseph Stern have said that Bondi’s memo may be “egregiously unconstitutional” and that “[t]he Trump administration is overplaying its hand on this issue and is racing toward a legal battle that it is likely to lose.”

In fact, the administration’s aggressive stance on DEI programs has already sparked legal challenges. Earlier this month, a coalition — including a restaurant group, the city of Baltimore, chief diversity officers, and professors — filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over his anti-DEI executive order, arguing that the president’s actions are unconstitutional. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the order is “unconstitutionally vague” and fails to clearly define what constitutes an illegal DEI program, which enables enforcers to “engage in discriminatory enforcement.”

Alongside the anti-DEI directive, Bondi issued additional memos yesterday on other far right policy matters, including reinstating the death penalty, cracking down on sanctuary cities, and implementing a strict return-to-office mandate.




Major Unions Sue DOGE to Block Musk Labor Department “Power Grab”

DOGE’s sweep of the federal government has “already been catastrophic,” the suit says.

February 6, 2025

President of the AFL-CIO Liz Shuler speaks at a rally against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in front of the U.S. Department of Labor on February 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Al Drago / Getty Images

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

AFL-CIO and other major unions are suing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in hopes of preventing the rogue agency from “raiding” the Department of Labor and gaining access to the personal information of potentially millions of American workers.

In the lawsuit filed Wednesday, the coalition of federal employee unions say that DOGE has been going after federal agencies and seizing their data in moves that experts have said are illegal and raise major questions about the integrity of Americans’ data and Musk’s apparent power to gut the government with little to no oversight despite his seeming status as a private citizen without clearance.

The group seeks court intervention to stop DOGE from targeting the Department of Labor in its sweep against federal agencies, through a restraining order or administrative stay. DOGE has already demanded that department employees give them access to “anything they want — or risk termination,” the lawsuit says.



A restraining order has been granted to temporarily block the Labor Department from handing information over to DOGE while the court rules on the lawsuit, The Washington Post’s Lauren Kaori Gurley reported on Thursday.

“At every step, DOGE is violating multiple laws,” the lawsuit says. “DOGE seeks to gain access to sensitive systems before courts can stop them, dismantle agencies before Congress can assert its prerogatives in the federal budget, and intimidate and threaten employees who stand in their way, worrying about the consequences later. The results have already been catastrophic.”



The lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of AFL-CIO and affiliated unions, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Communications Workers of America (CWA). The Economic Policy Institute also joined the suit.

“Today, they will come for the Department of Labor. On information and belief, the pattern will be the same: they will demand that DOGE staff be granted access to systems that they are legally barred from; they will fire any employee who protects the integrity of those systems; and they will claim power and authority that Congress has never granted them with respect to agency staff and Department programs,” the suit says.

“Elon Musk has absolutely no business raiding the Department of Labor to obtain the sensitive personal information of workers,” AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said in a statement. “It’s outrageous that Musk thinks he has the authority to access private data on workers from an agency that’s entrusted with protecting the fundamental rights of working people. With this lawsuit, we intend to stop Musk’s power grab cold.”

On the same day the lawsuit was filed, AFL-CIO and affiliates held a rally outside of the Department of Labor to protest Musk’s government pillaging campaign. Thousands attended, according to Zeteo.

Lawmakers like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) attended the rally, condemning the rogue billionaire’s reported plans to raid the department.

“We don’t get the benefits and the support and the protections but for the fact that workers organized, and they pushed back, and they fought. And when we don’t get it, we shut it down,” said Tlaib to the crowd.

DOGE has spent the last weeks sweeping through the federal government, taking a machete to seemingly indiscriminately eviscerate agencies. Its seizure of the Treasury Department’s payment system, including data on Americans’ social security numbers and financial information, has particularly raised concerns about data privacy in the hands of Musk’s group of young tech workers acting as DOGE operatives.

Some have noted that Musk’s sweep, while widespread, appears to be prioritizing agencies that are investigating Musk’s companies for violations.

The lawsuit raises concerns, for instance, that DOGE could access sensitive information within the Department of Labor, including workers’ data as well as information on investigations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into SpaceX, Tesla and The Boring Company.

Previous investigations have found that Tesla’s injury rate is far higher than that of the rest of the automobile factory industry, for instance. The Lever has also reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which Musk and his operatives have been trying to shut down entirely, had been investigating Musk’s Starlink as of 2022.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Monday that the administration is allowing Musk to determine and “excuse himself” if certain issues are a conflict of interest for him.

Labor advocates have also long warned that the Trump administration would go after the Department of Labor as a way to attack the resurging labor movement in the U.S. One of Donald Trump’s first moves in office was the dismissal of Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board who has been key in advancing labor rights in recent years, as well as labor board member Gwynne Wilcox, despite Trump not having the statutory power to dismiss labor board members for political reasons.



The EPA Has Suffered Decades of Attacks — But Trump’s Are the Worst Yet


Trump’s Project 2025-stoked sabotage of the Environmental Protection Agency will unleash rampant carcinogens in the US.
February 5, 2025

Contractors for the Environmental Protection Agency remove household hazardous waste as they search through homes damaged and destroyed by the Eaton Fire in the Altadena neighborhood of Los Angeles County, California, on January 30, 2025.PATRICK T. FALLON / AFP via Getty Images


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

Just over two weeks into Donald Trump’s second presidential term, his intentions are clear: to weaken and destroy the federal government. He has already unconstitutionally usurped congressional power and given Elon Musk’s unelected team complete access to the Treasury’s payment system, while taking a hatchet to longstanding, life-saving federal institutions. We are witnessing a blatant attempt to burn our governmental structure to the ground, destroy any semblance of checks and balances, and allow billionaires and their corporations free rein without consequences.

What does this mean for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has protected the environment and human health for nearly 55 years, including by regulating air pollution, banning dangerous chemicals like DDT and working to reduce carbon emissions? Trump is revealing the fragility of our government: Progress often takes years of pressure, compromise and monumental amounts of work — consider the recent limits on the dumping of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) known as “forever chemicals” submitted by the Biden administration last fall, or the agonizing process of passing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Now, Trump and his right-wing allies are attempting to destroy both with a snap of his fingers.

Speaking days into the Trump presidency — before some of the most horrifying orders came down — Matthew Tejada, senior vice president of environmental health at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), told Truthout that concerns about the future of the EPA can be broken down into three buckets: The White House may seek to roll back or revoke hard-earned environmental regulations and protections, withhold funds that the EPA is charged with disbursing for energy and environmental projects, and weaken the agency by attacking federal employees and the institution itself.

We are already seeing Trump attempt all three avenues of EPA sabotage predicted by Tejada, who previously worked within the EPA’s Office for Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. Within his first weeks in office, Trump withdrew Biden’s forever chemical reform plan, sought to keep lead in Americans’ drinking water and froze already allocated Inflation Reduction Act funds. Trump has also appointed chemical and oil industry insiders to the agency, fired every scientist on two of the EPA’s most influential science advisory panels and seems poised to attempt mass firings of EPA staff.

Rollbacks to Existing Protections

Environmental organizations like NRDC have been preparing for legal fights over rollbacks of EPA rules and protections. On January 22, the Trump administration announced the EPA was withdrawing Biden’s proposed regulations on PFAS. The regulations, which set limits on the amount that chemical plants can dump into the water supply, had been heavily pushed for and celebrated by advocates.




Trace amounts of forever chemicals, which are strongly linked to cancer, can be found in virtually every human’s blood. “It is in every single one of us, across the entire planet,” Tejada told Truthout. “It is ubiquitous. It is scary. We only know the literal tip of the iceberg of how dangerous this stuff is in our bodies, and all of us have it.” PFAS were used for decades in the production of nonstick coatings, waterproof clothing and fabrics and cardboard food packaging. Although some PFAS are banned in some states, others are still in use, and chemical plants continue to dump the dangerous chemicals into the water supply.

“If they take down those regulations we have on the books now, they’re consigning another generation to be exposed to these forever chemicals, without even beginning the process of getting them out of our environment,” said Tejada.

Trump is also threatening long awaited improvements to the Lead and Copper Rule. In October 2024, after decades of pressure and lawsuits from advocates, Biden’s EPA unveiled rules that aim to replace all lead drinking water pipes within the next 10 years. Now, Trump and congressional Republicans are attempting to repeal these regulations and ban the EPA from ever mandating lead pipe replacement in the future. As an NRDC adviser told The Guardian, Trump is “saying let them drink lead.”

“Nobody in this country really wants to continue to live with lead,” said Tejada. “Stepping back from it now would consign literally tens, if not hundreds of millions of people that are alive today, and are yet to even be born, to growing up in an environment where they are exposed to lead every time they take a sip out of their faucet.”


Within his first weeks in office, Trump withdrew Biden’s forever chemical reform plan, sought to keep lead in Americans’ drinking water and froze already allocated Inflation Reduction Act funds.

Advocates also fear that Trump will seek to overturn the endangerment finding, a federal ruling that empowers the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. On his first day in office, he ordered the EPA to make a recommendation within 30 days on the “legality and continued applicability” of the finding. What’s more, Project 2025 also recommends eliminating the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, instead turning enforcement duties over to the states. “If you take away enforcement, then the rest of the system just kind of doesn’t matter,” said Tejada. “The rules you pass, the permits that polluters have to receive … that all falls apart if industry knows that nobody’s going to come knocking to make sure that they’re playing by the law.”

He also noted that traditional methods of fighting in the courts don’t always work the same way against someone like Trump, who has no regard for following the rules.

“Even though we will challenge them in court, as will other folks … this administration has been so emboldened, they will go out there and make those claims, and it effectively freezes stuff in place,” Tejada explained. When Trump inevitably freezes or eliminates protective regulations, a federal judge can issue an injunction, instructing agencies to resume their work until the legality is sorted out. But the Trump administration has shown that it may ignore such orders, pressuring agencies to obey, even in the face of a conflicting judge order.

The massive mandate of protecting the environment already keeps the EPA stretched to capacity, even under the best of conditions. “We’re barely holding this thing together: Making our society work; keeping our economy going; offering a modicum of protection for people so they aren’t scared every time they take a sip of something, or a bite of something, or lay their head down on a pillow,” he said. “And we have a supreme agent of chaos now in the White House who understands that, and understands his ability to completely upset those systems to his own advantage.”
Slashing Funds

Each year, the EPA awards more than $4 billion in grants, technical assistance, and other assistance to governments, nonprofits, and other entities.

Among dozens of other executive orders, on January 20, Trump froze spending that was already authorized and approved by Congress through the Inflation Reduction Act. On January 27, his Office of Management and Budget (OMB) followed up with a wildly unconstitutional freeze on all federal financial assistance, grants and loans. The vague and poorly written memo, which asserts that federal spending should not be used to “advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering,” appears to apply to scheduled payments for disaster relief, hospital funding, school lunch programs and other food assistance, cancer research, and infrastructure and transit funding. The following day, shortly before the OMB order was set to go into effect, Medicaid payment portals were already down in some states.

Minutes before the scheduled start to the freeze, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan temporarily blocked it, ordering federal payments to continue until the legality of the freeze could be worked out in the courts. Days later, in a second lawsuit, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued another temporary block. In a transparent attempt to dismiss the lawsuits, the administration rescinded its memo, but not necessarily the spending freeze, throwing everything into further confusion. On February 3, Judge AliKhan followed up with a restraining order, instructing OBM to order departments to release all frozen funds. Legal experts agree that the president has no power to indefinitely pause federal spending, as the “power of the purse” constitutionally belongs to Congress.

Meanwhile, Inflation Reduction Act funding remains frozen: pausing projects, creating widespread confusion, and leaving invoices for already approved and completed work unpaid.

“Right now is when the [Inflation Reduction Act] money is finally starting to hit the ground,” Tejada said. “It’s finally rolling out of the government, touching down in people’s communities — buying solar panels, putting people to work, building resilience centers. So all of that, right now, is in jeopardy, just as it was about to get started.”

He added: “Hundreds of thousands of individuals across this country, at every level of our society, have put in so much time and energy and effort to make the best use of these resources, to put them to work in the ways that Congress intended. And for all that to potentially now be snatched away, just as the … meaningful part of the work is actually getting started, would be a tragedy on top of a tragedy.”
Attacking EPA Staff

Trump is also waging attacks on employees across the federal government. On his first day in office, he effectively reinstated his own October 2020 “Schedule F” order, which had initiated the process of stripping employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants in “policy-related” positions, making it easier to fire and replace them. President Joe Biden not only rescinded Trump’s 2020 order, but also used the official rule-making process to establish safeguards making it more difficult for Trump to bring it back. But in another power grab, Trump’s Office of Personnel Management claims he does not need to follow official steps to unwind Biden’s protections, and can do so with a simple executive order.


Trump and congressional Republicans are attempting to ban the EPA from ever mandating lead pipe replacement in the future.

Trump’s new EPA head, Lee Zeldin, voted against the environment 86 percent of the time during his tenure in the House of Representatives, according to the League of Conservation Voters. A group of utilities has already written to Zeldin, asking him to roll back Biden-era regulations on coal ash and greenhouse gas emissions. Trump also appointed a host of industry insiders to the agency, including Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry lobbyist, and Lynn Dekleva, who worked for 30 years at DuPont, a long-time producer and dumper of forever chemicals.

Meanwhile, Trump also fired every scientist on two important EPA science advisory panels, demoted many other EPA experts, and in a further effort to demoralize staff and encourage resignations, ordered all federal employees to return to the office full time instead of working remotely. In late January, more than 1,100 EPA employees — most of whom had been at the agency for less than a year or who had recently moved into new positions — received emails notifying them that they are on “a probationary/trial period,” and that “the agency has the right to immediately terminate you.”

“It’s bad,” Marie Owens-Powell, president of a union that represents thousands of EPA workers, told CBS, referring to agency morale. “I’ve been with the agency for over 33 years and I’ve never seen anything like this.”

This is exactly what Trump and his allies want. Trump’s nominee to run the OMB, Russell Vought, was one of the main architects of Project 2025 and the Schedule F order, and is a major proponent of Trump’s current unconstitutional attempts to withhold funds authorized by Congress. In a 2024 speech, he outlined exactly what is happening now:


We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.

Tejada warned that Project 2025 proposals like reinstating Schedule F and moving whole agency campuses across the country “will effectively shut down huge parts of our government, not just for days or weeks, but for years. And we’ve seen over and over again from past government shutdowns how unpopular that is with the American public. People are failing to connect the dots that what this administration is threatening to do is not a shutdown of our government for a few days, but literally for years.”
The EPA’s History as a “Punching Bag”

The EPA has been under assault before. But in many ways, the threats it faces today are unprecedented.

“EPA has been a punching bag since it was first created,” Tejada told Truthout. The agency was established in 1970 under President Richard Nixon, at a moment when the dangers of pollution were becoming impossible to ignore, from oil spills, to lifeless lakes, to deadly smog and chemical odors permeating cities, to the Cuyahoga River literally catching fire. In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, which required federal agencies to assess the environmental impact before beginning major projects, and directed the president to assemble the Council on Environmental Quality. The following year, sensing a growing environmental consciousness, Nixon created the EPA.

The EPA faced its first major challenge from Nixon himself. After Congress overrode his presidential veto on the Clean Water Act of 1972, he refused to release half of the funding mandated by Congress in the legislation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled he had no power to withhold the funds. Congress further limited the president’s power to withhold spending in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 — the very law that Trump and his allies are now trying to steamroll with his federal spending freeze.

A decade later, in 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned on deregulation, arguing that the health effects of pollution were overblown. Although environmental deregulation was unpopular with the public, Reagan rejected a moderate policy plan created by Republican environmentalists, instead adopting recommendations from the relatively new right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation.

Reagan appointed Anne Gorsuch — Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother — to head the agency. According to a 2018 paper in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH): “Gorsuch demoralized, marginalized, and reorganized EPA staff. In her inaugural speech … Gorsuch told employees, ‘We’re going to do more with less and we’re going to do it with fewer of you.’” Higher-ups developed hit lists of career staff they wanted gone, and EPA staffing levels dropped 21 percent over two years. Gorsuch also disbanded the EPA’s Office of Enforcement, causing civil enforcement cases to plummet.

Career staff at the EPA fought back. Hundreds of former employees calling themselves “Save EPA” leaked documents to Congress, prompting an investigation into Gorsuch’s handing of the Superfund program, which is dedicated to cleaning up highly contaminated sites. When Gorsuch refused to turn over subpoenaed documents, 55 House Republicans joined with Democrats to hold her in contempt of Congress. Amid the growing controversy, the White House forced Gorsuch to resign, reinstating Nixon’s original EPA head, William D. Ruckelshaus, for the remaining two years of the term.

In the following years, the EPA was generally supported by presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, although Republicans gained control of Congress under Clinton in 1994 and managed to shrink its budget. According to the AJPH article, as fossil fuel-funded conservative think tanks and media outlets grew in influence, “Many EPA employees remember 1994 as a watershed after which environmental policy and science became more politicized.”

This politicized atmosphere continued under George W. Bush, whose administration prohibited EPA employees from mentioning climate change. The AJPH article outlines how Bush’s attacks on the EPA were less confrontational than Nixon’s, “relying on delaying decisions and undermining science rather than on cutting budgets.”

Writing in 2018, one year into Trump’s first term, the paper’s authors analyzed the ways in which Trump’s assault on the EPA differed from Reagan’s and Bush’s. Their analysis holds truer than ever in 2025: “The Republican Party has shifted to the right and now controls the executive branch and both chambers of Congress (unlike in the early Reagan administration). Wealthy donors, think tanks, and fossil fuel and chemical industries have become more influential in fighting regulation. In the broader public, political polarization has increased, the environment has become a partisan issue, and science and the mainstream media are distrusted.”

Over the years, Tejada said the EPA has come to hold a key role in everyday life. “Not that everything has been perfect.… But if you look at the environment that we lived in in 1970, versus today, EPA has been wildly successful at cleaning up the environment in our country.”

“I think a lot of people don’t understand that its ability to have been as successful as it has been, has largely been due to the steady leadership and commitment of the institution and the people who inhabit it,” he continued. “And those people are now under threat in a way that they have never been. If they actually make moves to really gut the staff, to eliminate institutional memory and knowledge? A next president can’t just fix that. You’re talking about generations of value that can pretty quickly be extinguished, and that will take generations to rebuild.”

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.



Katie Rose Quandt is a freelance journalist in the Bronx who writes about justice and inequality. Follow her on Twitter: @katierosequandt.



Erasing History, Erasing Democracy: Trump’s Authoritarian Assault on Education

Trump appears bent on ridding schools of dangerous practices like critical thinking and an unsanitized study of history.
February 6, 2025

A statue of civil rights organizer Rosa Parks looks on as President Trump speaks during the National Prayer Breakfast at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on February 6, 2025. Trump's executive order on K-12 schooling threatens to revoke federal funding from schools that teach students about the history of racism and anti-racist struggle in the U.S.
Ting Shen / AFP via Getty Images

In the initial days of his second term, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders “seeking to control how schools teach about race and gender, direct more tax dollars to private schools, and deport pro-Palestinian protesters.” On January 29, 2025, he signed the “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” executive order, which mandates the elimination of curricula that the administration deems as promoting “radical, anti-American ideologies.” This executive order is not just an attack on critical race theory or teachings about systemic racism — it is a cornerstone of an authoritarian ideology designed to eliminate critical thought, suppress historical truth and strip educators of their autonomy. Under the guise of combating “divisiveness,” it advances a broader war on education as a democratizing force, turning schools into dead zones of the imagination. By threatening to strip federal funding from institutions that refuse to conform, this policy functions as an instrument of ideological indoctrination, enforcing a sanitized, nationalistic narrative that erases histories of oppression and resistance while deepening a culture of ignorance and compliance.

Concurrently, President Trump issued the “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families” executive order, aiming to enhance school choice by redirecting federal funds to support charter schools and voucher programs. This policy enables parents to use public funds for private and religious school tuition. While proponents claim that this legislation empowers parents and fosters competition, in reality, it is a calculated effort to defund and privatize public education, undermining it as a democratizing public good. As part of a broader far right assault on education, this policy redirects essential resources away from public schools, deepening educational inequality and advancing an agenda that seeks to erode public investment in a just and equitable society.

In the name of eliminating radical indoctrination in schools, a third executive order, which purportedly aims at ending antisemitism, threatens to deport pro-Palestinian student protesters by revoking their visas, warning that even those legally in the country could be targeted for their political views. In a stark display of authoritarianism, Trump’s executive order unapologetically stated that free speech would not be tolerated. Reuters made this clear in reporting that one fact sheet ominously declared: “I will … quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before. To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.”

Trump’s longstanding war on education has taken a more dangerous turn with his incoming order to eliminate the Department of Education through executive fiat. This is not just an attack on bureaucracy; it is a calculated and boldfaced assault on public education itself — an effort to dismantle one of the last remaining institutions or public goods capable of fostering critical thought, historical memory and civic responsibility.

By gutting federal oversight, he is handing the fate of education to reactionary state legislatures and corporate interests, ensuring that knowledge is shaped by a state held captive by billionaires and far right extremists. This is the logic of authoritarianism: to hollow out democratic institutions and replace education with white Christian propaganda and a pedagogy of repression. At issue here is an attempt to render an entire generation defenseless against the very forces seeking to dominate them.

Related Story

Trump’s Education Agenda for Teachers: Sanitize US History or Leave the Field
Teachers fear Trump may use federal funding as a bludgeon to push “uncritical race theory” on K-12 schools and colleges. By Jesse Hagopian , Truthout January 24, 2025


What we are witnessing is not just an educational crisis but a full-scale war on institutions that not only defend democracy but enable it. What is under siege in this attack is not only the critical function of education but the very notion that it should be defined through its vision of creating a central feature of democracy, educating informed and critically engaged citizens.

These executive actions represent an upgraded and broader version of McCarthyite and apartheid-era education that seeks to dictate how schools teach about race and gender, funnel more taxpayer dollars into private institutions, and deport Palestinian protesters. The irony is striking: The White House defends these regressive measures of sanitizing history, stripping away the rights of transgender students and erasing critical race theory as efforts to “end indoctrination in American education.” In truth, this is not about the pursuit of freedom or open inquiry, nor is it about fostering an education that cultivates informed, critically engaged citizens. At its core, this agenda is a deliberate attack on education as a public good — one that threatens to dismantle not only public institutions, but the very essence of public and higher education and its culture of criticism and democracy. The urgency of this moment cannot be overstated: The future of education itself is at stake.

In the raging currents of contemporary political and cultural life, where fascist ideologies are rising, one of the most insidious and all-encompassing forces at play is the violence of forgetting — a plague of historical amnesia. This phenomenon, which I have referred to as “organized forgetting,” describes the systemic erasure of history and its violent consequences, particularly in the public sphere. This is especially evident in the current historical moment, when books are banned in libraries, public schools and higher education across countries, such as the United States, Hungary, India, China and Russia. Ignoring past atrocities, historical injustices and uncomfortable truths about a society’s foundation is not merely an oversight — it constitutes an active form of violence that shapes both our collective consciousness and political realities. What we are witnessing here is an assault by the far right on memory that is inseparable from what Maximillian Alvarez describes as a battle over power — over who is remembered, who is erased, who is cast aside and who is forcibly reduced to something less than human. This struggle is not just about history; it is about whose stories are allowed to shape the present and the future. Alvarez captures this reality with striking clarity and is worth quoting at length:


Among the prizes at stake in the endless war of politics is history itself. The battle for power is always a battle to determine who gets remembered, how they will be recalled, where and in what forms their memories will be preserved. In this battle, there is no room for neutral parties: every history and counter-history must fight and scrap and claw and spread and lodge itself in the world, lest it be forgotten or forcibly erased. All history, in this sense, is the history of empire — a bid for control of that greatest expanse of territory, the past.

Organized forgetting also helped fuel the resurgence of Donald Trump, as truth and reason are being systematically replaced by lies, corruption, denial and the weaponization of memory itself. A culture of questioning, critique and vision is not simply disappearing in the United States — it is actively maligned, disparaged and replaced by a darkness that, as Ezra Klein observes, is “stupefyingly vast, stretching from self-destructive incompetence to muddling incoherence to authoritarian consolidation.”

This erosion affects institutions of law, civil society and education — pillars that rely on memory, informed judgment and evidence to foster historical understanding and civic responsibility. The attack on the common good goes beyond the distractions of an “attention economy” designed to distort reality; it reflects a deliberate effort to sever the ties between history and meaning. Time is reduced to fragmented episodes, stripped of the shared narratives that connect the past, present and future.

This crisis embodies a profound collapse of memory, history, education and democracy itself. A culture of manufactured ignorance — rooted in the rejection of history, facts and critical thought — erases accountability for electing a leader who incited insurrection and branded his opponents as “enemies from within.” Such authoritarian politics thrive on historical amnesia, lulling society into passivity, eroding collective memory and subverting civic agency. This is epitomized by Trump’s declaration on “Fox & Friends” that he would punish schools that teach students accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the country. The call to silence dangerous memories is inseparable from the violence of state terrorism — a force that censors and dehumanizes dissent, escalating to the punishment, torture and imprisonment of truth-tellers and critics who dare to hold oppressive power accountable.

At its core, the violence of forgetting operates through the denial and distortion of historical events, particularly those that challenge the dominant narratives of power. From the colonial atrocities and the struggles for civil rights to the history of Palestine-Israel relations, many of the most significant chapters of history are either glossed over or erased altogether. This strategic omission serves the interests of those in power, enabling them to maintain control by silencing inconvenient truths. As the historian Timothy Snyder reminds us, by refusing to acknowledge the violence of the past, society makes it far easier to perpetuate injustices in the present. The politics of organized forgetting, the censoring of history and the attack on historical consciousness are fundamental to the rise of far right voices in the U.S. and across the world.

With the rise of regressive memory laws, designed to repress what authoritarian governments consider dangerous and radical interpretations of a country’s past, historical consciousness is transformed into a form of historical amnesia. One vivid example of a regressive memory law was enacted by Trump during his first term. The 1776 Report, which right-wingers defended as a “restoration of American education,” was in fact an attempt to eliminate from the teaching of history any reference to a legacy of colonialism, slavery and movements which highlighted elements of American history that were unconscionable, anti-democratic and morally repugnant. Snyder highlights the emergence of memory laws in a number of states. He writes in a 2021 New York Times article:


As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida) has passed guidelines with the same effect. Another 12 state legislatures are still considering memory laws. The particulars of these laws vary. The Idaho law is the most Kafkaesque in its censorship: It affirms freedom of speech and then bans divisive speech. The Iowa law executes the same totalitarian pirouette. The Tennessee and Texas laws go furthest in specifying what teachers may and may not say. In Tennessee teachers must not teach that the rule of law is “a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”… The Idaho law mentions Critical Race Theory; the directive from the Florida school board bans it in classrooms. The Texas law forbids teachers from requiring students to understand the 1619 Project. It is a perverse goal: Teachers succeed if students do not understand something.

A major aspect of this forgetting and erasure of historical memory is the role of ignorance, which has become not just widespread but weaponized in modern times. Ignorance, particularly in U.S. society, has shifted from being a passive lack of knowledge to an active refusal to engage with critical issues. This is amplified by the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary media and the increasing normalization of a culture of lies and the embrace of a language of violence, which not only thrives on distraction rather than reflection, but has become a powerful force for spreading bigotry, racial hatred and right-wing lies. In addition, the mainstream media’s obsession with spectacle — be it political drama, celebrity culture or sensationalist stories — often overshadows the more important, yet less glamorous, discussions about historical violence and systemic injustice.

This intellectual neglect allows for a dangerous cycle to persist, where the erasure of history enables the continuation of violence and oppression. Systems of power benefit from this amnesia, as it allows them to maintain the status quo without having to answer for past wrongs. When society refuses to remember or address past injustices — whether it’s slavery, imperialism or economic exploitation — those in power can continue to exploit the present without fear of historical accountability.


To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.

The cultural impact of this organized forgetting is profound. Not only does it create a void in public memory, but it also stunts collective growth. Without the lessons of the past, it becomes nearly impossible to learn from mistakes and address the root causes of social inequalities. The failure to remember makes it harder to demand meaningful change, while reproducing and legitimating ongoing far right assaults on democracy.

The violence of organized forgetting is not a mere act of neglect; it is a deliberate cultural and intellectual assault that undercuts the foundations of any meaningful democracy. By erasing the past, society implicitly condones the ongoing oppression of marginalized groups and perpetuates harmful ideologies that thrive in ignorance. This erasure silences the voices of those who have suffered — denying them the space to speak their truth and demand justice. It is not limited to historical injustices alone; it extends to the present, silencing those who courageously criticize contemporary violence, such as Israel’s U.S.-backed genocidal war on Gaza, and those brave enough to hold power accountable.

The act of forgetting is not passive; it actively supports systems of oppression and censorship, muffling dissent and debate, both of which are essential for a healthy democracy.

Equally dangerous is the form of historical amnesia that has come to dominate our contemporary political and cultural landscape. This organized forgetting feeds into a pedagogy of manufactured ignorance that prioritizes emotion over reason and spectacle over truth. In this process, history is fragmented and distorted, making it nearly impossible to construct a coherent understanding of the past. As a result, public institutions — particularly education — are undermined, as critical thinking and social responsibility give way to shallow, sensationalized narratives. Higher education, once a bastion for the development of civic literacy and the moral imperative of understanding our role as both individuals and social agents, is now attacked by forces seeking to cleanse public memory of past social and political progress. Figures like Trump embody this threat, working to erase the memory of strides made in the name of equality, justice and human decency. This organized assault on historical memory and intellectual rigor strikes at the heart of democracy itself. When we allow the erasure of history and the undermining of critical thought, we risk suffocating the ideals that democracy promises: justice, equality and accountability.

A democracy cannot thrive in the absence of informed and engaged agents that are capable of questioning, challenging and reimagining a future different from the present. Without such citizens, the very notion of democracy becomes a hollow, disembodied ideal — an illusion of freedom without the substance of truth or responsibility. Education, in this context, is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is the foundation and bedrock of political consciousness. To be educated, to be a citizen, is not a neutral or passive state — it is a vital, active political and moral engagement with the world, grounded in critical thinking and democratic possibility. It is a recognition that the act of learning and the act of being a citizen are inextricable from each other. To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.

Confronting the violence of forgetting requires a shift in how we engage with history. Intellectuals, educators and activists must take up the responsibility of reintroducing the painful truths of the past into public discourse. This is not about dwelling in the past for its own sake, but about understanding its relevance to the present and future. To break the cycles of violence, society must commit to remembering, not just for the sake of memory, but as a critical tool for progress.

Moreover, engaging with history honestly requires recognizing that the violence of forgetting is not a one-time event but a continual process. Systems of power don’t simply forget; they actively work to erase, rewrite and sanitize historical narratives. This means that the fight to remember is ongoing and requires constant vigilance. It’s not enough to simply uncover historical truths; society must work to ensure that these truths are not forgotten again, buried under the weight of media spectacles, ideological repression and political theater.

Ultimately, the violence of forgetting is an obstacle to genuine social change. Without confronting the past — acknowledging the violence and injustices that have shaped our world — we cannot hope to build a more just and informed future. To move forward, any viable democratic social order must reckon with its past, break free from the bonds of ignorance, and commit to creating a future based on knowledge, justice and accountability.

The task of confronting and dismantling the violent structures shaped by the power of forgetting is immense, yet the urgency has never been more pronounced. In an era where the scope and power of new pedagogical apparatuses such as social media and AI dominate our cultural and intellectual landscapes, the challenge becomes even more complex. While they hold potential for education and connection, these technologies are controlled by a reactionary ruling class of financial elite and billionaires, and they are increasingly wielded to perpetuate disinformation, fragment history and manipulate public discourse. The authoritarian algorithms that drive these platforms increasingly prioritize sensationalism over substance, lies over truth, the appropriation of power over social responsibility, and in doing so, reinforce modes of civic illiteracy, while attacking those fundamental institutions which enable critical perspectives and a culture of questioning.

The vital need for collective action and intellectual engagement to reclaim and restore historical truth, critical thinking and social responsibility is urgent. The present historical moment, both unprecedented and alarming, resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s reflection on an earlier era marked by the rise of fascism: “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters.”

In the face of a deepening crisis of history, memory and agency, any meaningful resistance must be collective, disruptive and unapologetically unsettling — challenging entrenched orthodoxies and dismantling the forces that perpetuate ignorance and injustice. This struggle needs to be both radical in its essence and uncompromising in its demands for social change, recognizing education as inseparable from politics and the tangible challenges people face in their everyday lives. In this collective effort lies the power to dismantle the barriers to truth, rebuild the foundations of critical thought, and shape a future rooted in knowledge, justice and a profound commitment to make power accountable. Central to this vision is the capacity to learn from history, to nurture a historical consciousness that informs our present and to reimagine agency as an essential force in the enduring struggle for democracy. This call for a radical imagination cannot be confined to classrooms but must emerge as a transformative force embedded in a united, multiracial, working-class movement. Only then can we confront the urgent crises of our time.

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.


Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: The Terror of the Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), On Critical Pedagogy, 2nd edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy: Education in a Time of Crisis (Bloomsbury 2021); Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance (Bloomsbury 2022) and Insurrections: Education in the Age of Counter-Revolutionary Politics (Bloomsbury, 2023), and coauthored with Anthony DiMaggio, Fascism on Trial: Education and the Possibility of Democracy (Bloomsbury, 2025). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s board of directors.

'Cult making kids kill': Mysterious online figure linked to at least 2 school shootings

February 06, 2025
RAW STORY

Before 17-year-old Solomon Henderson fatally shot a fellow student and then took his own life at Antioch High School in Nashville, Tennessee last month, he left a trail of documents and social media posts that revealed his immersion in a swirl of violent white supremacy, occultism and edgy far-right memes.

He name-dropped a parade of white supremacist mass murderers and school shooters, while resharing terror manuals that goad impressionable and troubled teenagers like himself to gamify violence by encouraging efforts to improve on their predecessors’ lethality.

Henderson’s writings and social media posts also referenced “groomers” and “handlers.” Among the half-dozen nicknames Henderson dropped, one has been flagged for its association with three separate deadly attacks.

“Nitro groomed me,” Henderson wrote on his Bluesky account one day before he took a gun to school and killed a 16-year-old student. And in a diary that he left behind, Henderson mentioned Nitro, also known as “Nitrogen,” as being among his “top ‘groomers.’”


Henderson’s writings brim with dehumanizing tropes and grotesque descriptions of violence, suggesting, at least in part, that the purpose of his propaganda was to shock and alarm parents, teachers and other authority figures.

Carla Hill, director of investigative research for the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, told Raw Story in an email that Henderson’s post “may have been a trolling effort” or “perhaps an inside joke.” She added: “We have no evidence that Nitro played a direct role in guiding or mentoring Henderson. What is more likely and perhaps notable is that Henderson had to have been in online spaces either with Nitro or where he was discussed, because he was familiar with him and versed in his activities/reputation perhaps.”

While the exact role played by the “groomers” and “handlers” cited by Henderson remains unclear, the nicknames and social media accounts are likely to provide investigators with leads on a potential network of operators — part of a global network — who may be working behind the scenes to instigate terrorism.
by Taboola
Sponsored LinksYou May Like

Advance Your Career with a Nursing Degree—Flexible Online Programs for Aspiring Healthcare Heroes!Pursue your passion for healthcare with a flexible nursing degree. Study at your own pace, anytime, anywhere.toptip
Learn More






“They think we’re satanic pdf groomers. Part of super Mkultra cult making kids kill,” Henderson wrote in an X post that tagged Nitro in mid-December last year, referring to a CIA mind-control experiment. “They [sic] people are f---ing stretching. I’m just trolling; I barely know her.”

Henderson was talking about Natalie Rupnow, a 15-year-old who fatally shot a fellow student and teacher at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, WI before taking her own life. Rupnow’s attack turned out to be eerily similar to the one Henderson himself would carry out about a month later.

But privately, according to a diary entry from the same period, Henderson suggested he was much more closely connected to Rupnow.

Henderson took note of an X post by Rupnow shortly before she carried out her attack. In the post, Rupnow displayed a photo of herself making a hand sign. Henderson wrote in his diary that he recognized the gesture as the “white power symbol” used by Brenton Tarrant, the white supremacist who slaughtered 51 Muslims in an attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019.

Rupnow followed the photo with a post linking to a Google Docs version of her manifesto, although she neglected to make it public.

“Livestream it,” Henderson wrote in reply.

Later, he expressed excitement in his diary that Rupnow had followed two of his X accounts.

For his part, the person who goes by the name Nitro admitted to being in an online voice chat with Rupnow, and, according to the Center on Extremism, distributed a hoax version of her manifesto on X.

Nitro’s identity remains unknown, but based on an apparent recording of his voice reviewed by Raw Story, he appears to have an English accent and confirmed in the recording that he was in the time zone for the United Kingdom. An X post uncovered by the Center on Extremism indicates Nitro is 17 years old — the same age as Henderson was — and that he is a person of Russian heritage. The post displays a photo of a balloon that says, “Happy 17th Birthday” in Russian, while another X account uses a Russian flag in the bio.

An archived version of another X account shows Nitro telling another user that he planned to “get into contact with my FSB friends,” suggesting that he knows people who work for Russian intelligence.

Henderson’s dismissive post came in response to a post by another X user tagging the FBI and calling on the agency to detain Henderson and “Nitro” based on their apparent foreknowledge of Rupnow’s attack.

Three days later, Henderson posted a link in his diary to a video recording of Nitro giving an interview to an unidentified reporter about the Rupnow shooting. Nitro livestreamed the interview in a Discord group chat as four other anonymous users listened in and typed comments in the chat to help him script his responses.

There was no mistaking in the exchange that took place before the call started that Nitro’s intention was to misdirect the reporter.

“This is going to be fun,” Nitro told the other users in the group chat. “The greatest psy-op ever.”

In a comment in his diary accompanying the link, Henderson remarked that Nitro was “trolling” the reporter, adding a homophobic slur and the text acronym for “laugh out loud.”

During the interview, Nitro admitted that he and Rupnow had interacted in a Discord group chat, while presenting himself as an amused bystander. Based on the coaching from the other members of the chat and their celebratory post-interview assessment, it’s clear what they intended to present as a red herring to explain the motivation behind the attack.

About 10 minutes into the interview, a user with the screen name “Chud King” encouraged Nitro to talk about a concept called “radfem Hitler,” and that was the theme Nitro emphasized during the interview.

“So, radfem Hitler — it’s this really insane bats--- crazy misandrist, like racist woman on Twitter,” Nitro told the reporter. He added that when Rupnow started following the account that supposedly promoted radical feminism and Hitler worship, “that’s kind of when she spiraled.”

Another user in the group chat goes by the name Kristiyan on Discord and X.

In recent X posts, Kristiyan identifies himself as a pan-Slavist. He laments that Eastern Europeans “have this idiotic aggressive pettiness towards the people who are the most similar to them, which is how they end up conquered and taken over by total aliens.

Two days after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Kristiyan expressed disdain for Russian far-rightists who welcome the new U.S. president, writing, “The US will remain an enemy, and I’m grateful things are that way.”

Following Nitro’s phone call with the reporter seeking information about the Rupnow shooting, Kristiyan commented with wry satisfaction: “Journalist owned.”

In addition to playing up the “radfem Hitler” concept as a driver of the attack, Nitro also attempted to minimize connections between Rupnow and another attacker — an 18-year-old named Arda Küçükyetim, who stabbed five people at an outdoor café in the northwestern Turkish city of Eskisehir in August.

“Nobody actually knows about this Arda guy outside of probably people in Turkey, right?” Nitro said. “Nobody’s ever heard of him. He’s such a nothing-burger.”

The reporter asked Nitro whether Rupnow had ever mentioned Küçükyetim.

“No,” Nitro responded.

What Nitro didn’t mention was that both he and Rupnow were in a Telegram chat that had been set up in advance so they could watch Küçükyetim livestream his attack.

Hill at the Center on Extremism told Raw Story that her team found a Telegram chat group where Küçükyetim posted his manifesto. An associate known as “Hansen” then posted a link to a livestream of a promised attack. While the members of the chat group were waiting for the attack to begin, Hill said, Rupnow joined the chat through an invitation link, indicating she had a preexisting relationship with at least one other participant.

Afterwards, members of the chat group critiqued the attack.

By the standards of the accelerationist movement, where success is measured in kill counts, it was a disappointment to them: No one died.

“A for effort,” Nitro wrote in the chat.

“At least he did it,” Hansen said.

Rupnow concurred.

“Credit given for that at least,” she wrote.

This story is the second in a three-part series exploring how violent online subcultures provide the opportunity for teenagers attracted to accelerationism and inceldom to network and encourage one another to carry out terrorist attacks. Read Part 1 here.