Tuesday, March 17, 2026

 Trump Is Dismantling US Democracy at a Speed ‘Unprecedented in Modern History’: Watchdog


“Our data on the USA goes back to 1789. What we’re seeing now is the most severe magnitude of democratic backsliding ever in the country.”


People participate in a “No Kings” national day of protest in Washington, DC, on October 18, 2025.
(Photo by Amid Farahi/AFP via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Mar 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


report released on Tuesday by the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden has found that President Donald Trump and his administration are dismantling democracy in the US at a speed that “is unprecedented in modern history.”

In its report, V-Dem categorizes the first year of Trump’s second term as “a rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency.”

In fact, V-Dem says that the Trump administration has accomplished in just one year what most budding autocracies take a decade to achieve, adding that “the speed of decline is comparable to some coups d´état.”

Of particular concern is the failure of the legislative branch of the US government to apply any kind of oversight or check upon the executive branch, the report explains.

“The Republican-controlled Congress seems to have abdicated its constitutional role in favor of the executive branch, ceding significant legislative, fiscal, and oversight powers during 2025,” the report says. “The Trump administration has de facto repeatedly taken over the Congressional ‘power of the purse’—enshrined in the Constitution and in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act—unilaterally cancelling or reallocating federal funding.”

The report also points fingers at the US Senate for repeatedly rolling over and confirming unqualified Trump nominees, which it says is tantamount to letting the White House “sideline” the upper chamber’s authority altogether.

V-Dem goes on to document the administration’s repeated assaults on the judicial branch and the rule of law in general during his second term, starting when Trump issued a mass pardon to more than 1,500 alleged or convicted criminals who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Since then, the administration has waged a pressure campaign against judges who rule against it consisting of “impeachment resolutions and misconduct complaints,” while also using executive orders to punish major law firms simply for representing the president’s political enemies in court.

The lone bright spot in US democracy, says V-Dem, is that the administration has not yet been able to attack states’ powers to administer their own elections, although not for lack of effort.

“Actions taken in 2025 raise concerns regarding the integrity of the 2026 midterms,” the report warns. “This primarily concerns attempts to assert federal control over election processes, which must be decentralized and state-run, according to the Constitution.”

The report notes that Trump has issued an executive order that attempts to override states’ election laws by restricting mail-in voting and mandating voter IDs at polling places nationwide, but adds that “many provisions of this order have been blocked and others are still being challenged in federal court.”

In an interview with The Guardian, V-Dem founder Staffan Lindberg used historical context to explain why Trump’s assault on US democracy is truly without precedent.

“Our data on the USA goes back to 1789,” he said. “What we’re seeing now is the most severe magnitude of democratic backsliding ever in the country.”

He also said that other authoritarian leaders have taken much more time in ripping down their states’ democratic institutions than Trump has.

“For Orbán in Hungary, it took about four years,” Lindberg said, “for Vučić in Serbia, it took eight years, and for Erdoğan in Turkey and Modi in India, it took about 10 years to accomplish the suppression of democratic institutions that Trump has achieved in only one year.”



‘Trump is aiming for dictatorship’. That’s the verdict of the world’s most credible democracy watchdog

Sweden’s V-Dem Institute warns that the US is no longer a liberal democracy. And autocracy is creeping across Europe too


A portrait of US president Donald Trump is seen through the snow in Washington, DC, 2 March 2026. Photograph: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images

Martin Gelin

THE GUARDIAN
Tue 17 Mar 2026 05.00 GMT


The US is no longer a democracy. One of the most credible global sources on the health of democratic nations now says this outright. The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute at Gothenburg University reaches the alarming conclusion in its annual report, that the US is hurtling towards autocracy at a faster rate than Hungary and Turkey.

“Our data on the USA goes back to 1789. What we’re seeing now is the most severe magnitude of democratic backsliding ever in the country,” says Staffan Lindberg, founder of the institute.


Since 2012, Lindberg has led his small group of researchers in Sweden to become the world’s leading source for analysis of the health of global democracy. In their latest report, published on Tuesday, they conclude that the US, for the first time in more than half a century, has lost its long-term status as a liberal democracy. The country is now going through a rapid process of what the report’s authors call “autocratisation”.


“For Orbán in Hungary, it took about four years, for Vučić in Serbia, it took eight years, and for Erdoğan in Turkey and Modi in India, it took about 10 years to accomplish the suppression of democratic institutions that Trump has achieved in only one year,” Lindberg says.

US democracy is now back at the worst recorded level since 1965, when US civil rights laws first introduced de facto universal suffrage. All progress made since then has been erased, according to the report.

Worldwide, democracy has receded to its lowest levels since the mid-70s. “The world has never before seen as many countries autocratising at the same time,” Lindberg says.

A record 41% (3.4 billion) of the world’s population currently resides in countries where democracy is deteriorating, the report claims, adding that Washington is leading this global turn away from democracy.

The researchers use 48 different metrics to assess democratic health, such as the freedom of expression and the media, the quality of elections and the observance of the rule of law. The resulting “liberal democracy index” shows that the speed with which US democracy is being dismantled is unprecedented in modern history. The main factor is a “rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency”, Lindberg says. Congress has been marginalised, jeopardising the “checks and balances” (judicial and legislative constraints on the executive) so crucial to US democracy. At the same time, civil rights have been rapidly declining and freedom of expression is now at its lowest level since the 1940s.
The V-Dem report highlights Trump’s pardon for 1,500 people convicted of the Capitol Hill assault, ‘undermining the legitimacy of courts’. Photograph: Samuel Corum/Getty Images


“We’ve seen a very fast concentration of power in the executive wing. The legislative branch has practically abdicated its powers to the president. It no longer functions as a check on executive power,” Lindberg says.

In Donald Trump’s first year as president, he signed 225 executive orders, whereas the Republican-controlled Congress passed only 49 new laws. “Most of Trump’s executive orders were significant. He shut down entire departments of the government, firing hundreds of thousands of employees. The bills passed by Congress were mostly insignificant modifications to existing laws. So, we no longer have a meaningful division between the legislative and executive branches,” Lindberg says.
Congress has been marginalised and freedom of expression is at its lowest level since the 1940s

Meanwhile, the supreme court has also mostly abdicated power, and even when it does strike down Trump’s executive orders, he circumvents it, Lindberg tells me. He points out that there are more than 600 ongoing judicial procedures against the Trump administration in the courts.

Another aspect of America’s rapidly deteriorating democracy, according to the report, is the removal of internal guardrails that protect the federal government from abuse of power. When I ask Lindberg how we should read the findings, his response is emphatic. “Trump has fired inspector generals and higher levels of civil servants across departments, and replaced them with loyalists. This is exactly what Orbán and Erdoğan did. They remove the constraints on power. It should be obvious by now that Trump is aiming for dictatorship.”

So how did a small research institute in Gothenburg become such a credible source on the decline of democracy in Washington? When Lindberg, a soft-spoken political scientist, founded the V-Dem Institute in 2012, global democracy was near its historic peak.

“Back then, we were all researching the process of democratisation, and we were frustrated that the metrics weren’t good enough, so we wanted to create a credible global index that was relevant for the whole community of democracy researchers,” he says.

Five years later, when the institute published its first dataset of global democracy, its experts realised that things were rapidly going in the wrong direction. “Now, all of us researching democratisation have become researchers on autocratisation,” Lindberg says.

At the time, their reports were criticised for “exaggerating” the risks to global democratic stability. “We were called alarmists. But now our warnings seem justified,” Lindberg says.

The core group of a dozen researchers in Gothenburg works with 4,200 researchers in 180 countries, using what they claim to be the largest global dataset on democracy, with more than 32m data points for 202 countries and territories, spanning from 1789 to 2025. “We have universal standards, but also people on the ground to tell us what is actually going on. The reports are 100% scientific, research-driven, and our data is free from bias and state influence, from general punditry and political considerations.”


V-Dem’s report, titled Unravelling the Democratic Era?, should be required reading for Europe, where seven EU member states – Hungary, Greece, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Italy and Romania – are “affected by autocratisation”, amid signs of governments using media censorship, curbs on freedom of expression and repression of civil society. Portugal and Bulgaria have joined the institute’s “watchlist”.

The report identifies the UK as a “new autocratiser”, driven by “a substantial decline” in freedom of expression and the media. “In the UK, it began before Keir Starmer, with the Elections Act 2022, and the government expanding its power over electoral commissions,” Lindberg says. “The Policing Act 2022 decreased civil rights and free speech. The Online Safety Act 2023 was used to penalise online speech and lawsuits silencing journalists. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 increased demands on universities to monitor protests and police free speech. What’s worrying is that once the democratic backsliding begins, it’s often hard to stop.”.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Estonia and Ireland top V-Dem’s global democracy index for 2025. The efforts of others, including Poland, are highlighted for attempting to “U-turn” away from autocracy. But only 18 countries across the world are democratising, a historic low.

Dozens of people are detained during a protest held in support of the banned Palestine Action group, London, 24 November 2024. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

A single bright spot in the assessment of the US is that free and open elections are still being held, and the electoral system “remains stable for now”. But executive orders since Trump came to power point to new risks for the electoral system.

Threats to bureaucrats and poll workers administering elections are already alarming, Lindberg says. “We’ve seen media reports that 40% of election/poll workers have quit since 2020. And Trump never accepted his defeat then. Why would he accept a defeat now? If we see a denial of the election results in 2026, then it’s a complete democratic breakdown.”

A potential source of cautious optimism may be that Trump’s authoritarian turn is increasingly unpopular. His approval rating is now below 40%. Large numbers of Trump voters are deeply disappointed with the new war in Iran, and with steadily rising living costs. Many of the liberal states that have been Trump targets, such as Minnesota and California, have successfully fought back against threats to civil rights and local communities.

“We’re also seeing more criticism from within the Maga movement,” Lindberg says.

It would be naive, as the report warns, to think that European countries are immune to democratic decline, whatever happens in Washington. “It’s a global trend,” says Lindberg, “so it’s not just America that is driving this. Research clearly shows that the far right, once they gain power, have a high probability of dismantling democratic institutions.”

In many countries across Europe, voters are now mobilising to elect their own versions of Trump, despite the administration’s open threats to the continent and its persistent support for extremist parties that undermine European stability. Establishment conservatives are following along, hoping against reason that things will somehow work out better this time than in previous eras of authoritarian rule. With stark numbers and crystal-clear language, the V-Dem report underscores the risks of this path.

Martin Gelin writes for the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter. He is the author of Rules of Attraction: Why Soft Power Matters in Hard Times.
INTERVIEW

Israel Is Caught in a Permanent State of War

An interview with Israeli academic and activist Idan Landau, who says “as long as the US and Europe continue to insulate Israel from the moral consequences of its policies,” things are likely to go from bad to worse.


A boy dressed in costume carries a toy gun on Purim on March 04, 2026 in Jerusalem. Iran fired waves of missiles at Israel and others in the region in response to joint attacks by the U.S. and Israel early on February 28.
(Photo by Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Image



C.J. Polychroniou
Idan Landau
Mar 17, 2026
Common Dreams


Israel’s war with Iran is a direct result of a political culture that depends for survival upon a permanent state of war, says Israeli academic and left-wing activist Idan Landau in the interview that follows. He observes that Israeli society on the whole has embraced a fascist mindset, “reflecting extreme paranoia and anxiety,” and thus intolerance for dissent. Subsequently, peace is a taboo and there is total indifference to genocidal acts and human casualties. Moreover, there is very little hope for a different trajectory, argues Landau, “as long as the U.S. and Europe continue to insulate Israel from the moral consequences of its actions.”

Landau is professor of linguistics and head of the department of linguistics at Tel Aviv University. He writes a political blog (in Hebrew) on Israeli affairs and has been imprisoned on several occasions for his refusal to serve in the Israel Defense Forces reserve.C. J. Polychroniou: Since the Hamas’ October 7 attack on southern Israel, the Netanyahu government embarked on a genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, expanded Jewish settlements in occupied West Bank and thus encouraged settlers to escalate West Bank terrorist attacks, exchanged fire with Hezbollah and the Houtis, then attacked Iran in what has been dubbed as the 12-Day War, and finally persuaded U.S. President Donald Trump to go to war with Iran. What is Israel’s endgame in terrorizing the Middle East, and how has permanent war impacted Israeli society and the Israeli psyche?

Idan Landau: I think the whole point of permanent war – I agree this is the most appropriate concept to use here – is that there is no endgame. Permanent war, with ever growing economic, emotional and political costs, is exactly what keeps the Israeli right-wing in power; it feeds on anxiety, paranoia and visions of imminent destruction (interestingly, our own and our enemies’ destruction, equally vivid). Not being able to concentrate on and fully understand what’s going on is also crucial; the Israeli public is extremely underinformed about key issues, like the fraudulent nuclear talks in Geneva, the far-reaching proposals by the Lebanese government, etc. The media – always complicit, these days criminal – bombards us with caricatures of our surrounding countries.
RECOMMENDED...



Israel Exploits Attack on Iran to Reinstate Gaza ‘Starvation Policy’



Israel Says IDF Will Stay in Lebanon for Months as It Expands Ground Invasion in South


That said, I think there is one constant, never-changing endgame lurking behind all the upheavals: The expansionist project in the West Bank. Not just Smotrich but a dedicated section within the Likkud, of right-wing religious settlers, are working tirelessly on this project, actually from the first week after October 7. Plans for resettlement of Gaza combined with increased settlement in the West Bank (specifically, the northern Samaria, surrounding Jenin and Tulkarem) were immediately aired and pushed forward by the settlers’ lobby together with their MK partners. The surge we now see in ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of Palestinian communities throughout the West Bank is inherent to the overall vision of this government, and it was stated as such even before October 7; that only gave it a huge impetus.

The impact on Israeli society is perhaps the most depressing aspect of it all. Political discourse has been reduced to hollow slogans. Every single issue in foreign affairs in framed as either “existential threat” or “unavoidable use of military force.” There’s absolutely no room for talk about non-violent paths (“peace” is a taboo even on the left). The Enemy is an undifferentiated mass of Hamas/Iran/Hezbollah/Houtis, in short, different guises of Amalek. Much of that, as I noted, is fueled by the deliberate absence of facts and evidence for rational conduct on the part of our enemies.

Israelis live in a peculiar state of mind: total disbelief in the possibility of normal life, clinging on to the very ideology that perpetuates this state of mind.C.J. Polychroniou: Israel has actual and perceived enemies. But is Benjamin Netanyahu alone the actual problem behind Israel’s permanent state of war? I mean, even most of Israeli opposition supported the genocide in Gaza and it’s doing the same thing now with the war against Iran.



Idan Landau: Netanyahu is the most able consolidator of all the dark impulses of Israeli society, but of course he didn’t make up anything on his own. If you go back to Begin’s speeches in the 1970s-1980s, they also constantly invoked the Holocaust as the ultimate justification for whatever Israel does. The Messianic drive to settle the greater Israel predates Netanyahu, as well as the overall brutal, racist degradation of Palestinians inside and outside Israel. You can go on and on – nothing is new here. At most, as you note, it is the subservience of the “opposition”; I don’t recall anything like it in the past. If you look at the governments that went to wars in 1973 and 1982, they faced considerable opposition, within the Knesset and outside of it, on the very issue of whether the war was justified (in 1973, it was clearly preventable; in 1982, it was pure imperial vanity). None of that is left today.

Which is why the temptation of permanent war is so strong: You’re guaranteed to make the willful silence of the opposition also permanent.

C. J. Polychroniou: In Lebanon, the Israeli armed forces are using Gaza tactics, attacking hospitals and killing medical staff, while in Iran they have engaged in what has been rightly described as chemical warfare on account of strikes on fuel depots. Isn’t the country concerned at all about its blatant assault on international law and that it has turned into a pariah state in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the people across the globe? What happened to Israel’s labor party which combined socialism with nation-building?

Idan Landau: As to the labor party, I always say that one should not speak ill of the dead. A handful of members of Knesset (MKs) that are obsessed with displays of liberal values and with welfare legislation when genocide is in full force and Apartheid shifts from de facto to de jure. The other “opposition” parties are either led by generals (Golan, Eizenkot) who offer zero alternatives to military dominance, or by right-wing neoliberals (Bennet, Lapid). The only representatives of left values in the Knesset are the Arab MKs. As to International Humanitarian Law (IHL), my impression is that Israelis are unconcerned insofar as Uncle Sam is, and it sure looks like he is, thoroughly unconcerned. The Trump administration vindictively sanctioned the International Criminal Court (ICC) judges presiding over the Israeli case, and quite explicitly stated that IHL does not apply to the U.S. and its allies. There’s a lot of duplicity in Israeli discourse regarding the so-called “Principle of Complementarity”; the official response to the ICC described the “independent and robust judicial system” of Israel, which investigates any suspicions for wrongdoings. Most Israelis simply think that the rules don’t apply to us since they don’t apply to the Hamas (they do apply to both parties; I already said that Israelis are shrouded in disinformation). But even the liberals that appeal to our own “independent and robust judicial system” look ridiculous in face of the massive cover-up we witness from the beginning of the genocide; the dropping of charges against the five torturers/rapists in Sde-Teiman is but the latest instance. Hundreds of heinous crimes did not even yield any charges.

C. J. Polychroniou: Courageous voices against war and violence can be heard here and there across Israeli society and peace activists have organized scores of demonstrations in cities like Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem to express their opposition to the war in Iran. Are anti-war demonstrations really seen as a threat to national security by the Netanyahu government and even segments of the Israeli citizenry?

Idan Landau: These things happen and they do lift our spirit. In honesty, I don’t think anyone views them as “a threat to national security,” that’s fascist talk. The public atmosphere is just incredibly intolerant, with or without the presence of the police, with or without any legal process. Just try to voice your opposition to the war – any war, pick your favorite – out in the street, and you’re sure to be harassed and probably beaten by random pedestrians within 15-20 minutes. So I think it is a typical fascist all-embracing violent climate, reflecting extreme paranoia and anxiety: The mere verbal expression of “sacrilegious” opinions is seen as a personal threat to our carefully maintained peace of mind; so tenuous and feeble, that it cannot even stand to face dissent. Point it out to Israelis and urge them to make out what it means for their confidence in what their state is doing that they must violently banish any expression of doubt and criticism (this is now the position of many journalists as well!) – well, see if you get an answer.

C. J. Polychroniou: Israel censored reporting on the genocide in Gaza. Is the same thing happening now with the war in Iran?

Idan Landau: Luckily, the IDF doesn’t control the entrance and exit to Iran. So we don’t have the brute force censorship, instead it’s the good old “filter and distort and leave out the context” censorship. They would report civilian casualties only if forced (because it’s getting too much international media), and you wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the “human shield” trick is now applied reflexively, before any facts are even known. In this sense, as all human right organizations pointed out, the Gaza genocide has set a shocking new standard of indifference to civilian casualties: All targets are criminalized by association to your favorite Amalek (currently the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC), and we stopped bothering about substantiating this association with actual facts; declaring it so makes it so. In this context, one can watch civilian suffering in Iran with a level of detachment and blame it all on the IRGC. We should remember, though, that the Iranian regime is no more scrupulous in its choice of targets in Israel; the war crimes are on both sides. Yet I cannot say that Israeli media covers the wider civilian effects of the war on Iranian citizens in any serious way. Pretty much 95% of what we get are silly, heroic odes to our courageous pilots and genius cyber fighters.

C. J. Polychroniou: In your view, is there a pathway towards peace in Israel? Is permanent peace even possible for Israel?

Idan Landau: Ultimately there can’t be any other solution; wars eventually end, consuming nations. I just don’t think it will be “Israel” as we now know it that will see the fruits of peace. It will be a totally different entity, somehow letting Jews and Arabs live together as equals. That’s not possible within the current regime. Sadly, the shift to non-violence only occurs after the level of death and suffering is insurmountable to both sides. No one knows when that will be. As long as the U.S. and Europe continue to insulate Israel from the moral consequences of its policies, it won’t change trajectory.
US-Israeli War on Iran Could Push 45 Million More Into Hunger, World Food Program Warns

“If this conflict continues, it will send shockwaves across the globe, and families who already cannot afford their next meal will be hit the hardest.”


Lebanese families displaced by the Israeli military seek shelter in the Dahiye district of Beirut, Lebanon on March 14, 2026.
(Photo by Murat Sengul/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Mar 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The United Nations World Food Program warned Tuesday that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its cascading impacts on the global economy could push 45 million more people into acute hunger this year.

WFP said in a statement that while the war “involves a global energy hub and not a breadbasket region, the potential impact is similar because energy and food markets are tightly correlated.” The organization pointed to Iran’s retaliatory closure of the Strait of Hormuz as a key factor in rising energy and fertilizer costs, which can drive up food prices.

Carl Skau, WFP’s deputy executive director and chief operating officer, said that “if this conflict continues, it will send shockwaves across the globe, and families who already cannot afford their next meal will be hit the hardest.”

“Without an adequately funded humanitarian response,” Skau added, “it could spell catastrophe for millions already on the edge.”

WFP provided a breakdown of where and how much acute hunger is expected to rise if the war—now in its third week—does not end by the middle of 2026:Asia: 10 countries analyzed; 9.1 million people could be pushed into acute food insecurity, which is a 24% increase;
East and Southern Africa: 16 countries analyzed; 17.7 million people could be pushed into acute food insecurity, which is a 17.7% increase;
Latin America and the Caribbean: 3 countries analyzed; 2.2 million people could be pushed into acute food insecurity, which is a 16% increase;
Middle East and North Africa: 12 countries analyzed; 5.2 million people could be pushed into acute food insecurity, which is a 14% increase; and
West and Central Africa: 12 countries analyzed; 10.4 million people could be pushed into acute food insecurity, which is a 21% increase.

The illegal US-Israeli assault on Iran has already displaced more than 3 million Iranians, sparking fears of a massive refugee crisis. Hundreds of thousands have also been displaced in Lebanon, where Israel is expanding its aggressive aerial and ground attacks.

Aline Kamakian, a member of the World Central Kitchen Chef Corps who is leading the group’s response to the escalating humanitarian disaster in Lebanon, said in a statement that “the official figures likely don’t capture the full scale of displacement.”

“My biggest concern now is how long this conflict will last,” said Kamakian. “Every day, more families arrive in Beirut, but there is already a shortage of housing and basic infrastructure to support so many people. Many have lost their homes and don’t know where they will go next. At the same time, the economy is collapsing—restaurants are empty, businesses are struggling, and next week is normally a period when tourists arrive and the city comes alive.”

  US Supreme Court gets history lesson as it threatens to blow up birthright citizenship


Travis Gettys
March 17, 2026 
RAW STORY



U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for their group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2022. Seated (L-R): Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan. Standing (L-R): Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo


The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two weeks on the birthright citizenship case, and legal experts chewed over the history of that issue.

The Reconstruction-era 14th Amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which was specifically intended to apply to the children born to former enslaved people. But experts explained on Slate's "Amicus" podcast how the history of migration informed that constitutional right.

"The biggest myth about American immigration is that until the federal government started enforcing our borders in the late 19th century, it was just open borders," said Anna O. Law, the Herbert Kurz chair in constitutional rights at CUNY Brooklyn College.

"It feeds right into the American dream myth, right?" Law added. "'My ancestors came with nothing but the clothes on their back and a willingness to work hard.' But the period before the federal government took over immigration didn’t mean there were no laws and that there were no migration restrictions. There’s plenty of work and existing scholarship that says the states were enforcing migration laws in the 19th century."

However, she was shocked to learn how some elements of present-day immigration law, such as the assumption that poorer migrants would become wards of the state, originated during the colonial era.

"'People who can’t economically take care of themselves, we don’t want them' – well, that originated in the colonial period," Law said. "So stretching from the colonial period to 1888, first the colonies, and then the states had elaborate sets of laws recruiting certain groups of people to come and restricting other people so they could not come."

Co-host Dahlia Lithwick pointed out that the originalism espoused by the Supreme Court's conservative majority sometimes suffered from false narratives about American history, and Law agreed that mistaken assumptions about early immigration could creep into arguments in this case.

"What we know and what we don’t know about immigration and citizenship history has so many political effects and legal effects, because the myth goes: 'We were very generous for a very long time, and at some point that had to stop because of the ills of mass migration,'" Law said.

But that's not the case, she said, because only one state – New York – had benevolent migration laws, and all the rest were restrictionist, and Massachusetts, for example deported people to Ireland, Europe or other states because they didn’t want to be economically and socially responsible for them.

"A common argument I’ve heard is, 'Well, there were no illegal aliens back then,' Law said. "Well, actually there were unauthorized people, if you want to call them that, [under] just over a century of state laws. So there are plenty of people who had broken some of those laws, and then if you only want to restrict it to federal immigration law, the Congress passed a law in 1808 banning the international slave trade and still ships are smuggling enslaved people in, and so the Framers of the 14th Amendment knew about that. They knew about those ships coming in. They knew about the hundreds of African enslaved people smuggled in after the 1808 congressional ban. So there were unauthorized people in the U.S., and did the 14th Amendment include their children? Yes, it did and they knew that."

At the time the 14th Amendment was passed, Congress and most Americans despised the Chinese immigrants in the West, and there were extensive discussions about whether birthright citizenship applied to them, as well, and Law said they made clear it did.

"The Framers said, ''No, yeah, we mean them, because even though their parents cannot gain citizenship because there are laws banning them from naturalization, we do mean the children,'" Law said.

The framers chose to use the words "all persons," which Law said was crucially important for this case.

"They could have said that the rights of equal protection and due process are for all citizens," she said. "They chose not to use all citizens. It says 'all persons,' and I think they were very mindful of the fact that a bloody civil war had just concluded. They were mindful of the fact that states had been discriminating against Black people, and it’s the states who were going to do any sort of discrimination. So by saying 'all persons,' they are now making clear that U.S. citizenship stands above state citizenship and that the federal government will enforce the protections of state citizenship.
Trump says 'the quiet part out loud' about push to install allies at CNN


U.S. President Donald Trump in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 12, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci

March 17, 2026
ALTERNET

The Trump Administration has been reviewing Paramount Skydance's proposal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery, whose assets include CNN, for $110 billion. Radar Online's Beth Shilliday, in late February, reported that CNN staffers are filled with "dread" at the prospect of Paramount Skydance's David Ellison, a Republican billionaire, as their new boss.

Now, according to Washington Post reporter Scott Nover, President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are publicly applauding the deal and making it clear that hope to see David Ellison and his father Larry Ellinson running CNN.

Trump, on Monday, March 16, before a Kennedy Center board meeting in Washington, D.C., commented, "The Ellison family, two great people, great people. It's a great family." And Hegseth said, "The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better."

"CNN, a longtime target of Trump's complaints about the media, is among the most prominent assets in Paramount's pending acquisition of Warner Bros., which requires approval from the Justice Department," Nover reports. "Larry Ellison, co-founder and chairman of Oracle and a longtime friend and ally to Trump, has financially backstopped Paramount's pending deal to buy Warner Bros. and is also a major investor in the White House-blessed deal that spun off TikTok into a U.S. company. That has helped rebrand the tech billionaire and his son David into media tycoons — with some help from Trump."

Nover adds, "The (Trump) administration's posture toward Paramount's proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery has drawn scrutiny since a bidding war erupted over the troubled media giant late last year."

In a March 17 post on X, formerly Twitter, Nover highlighted his article and noted, "Trump and Hegseth are praising the Ellison family even as the administration reviews Paramount's $110 [billion] bid to buy Warner Bros."

William Baer, who served as antitrust chief at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under former President Barack Obama, is highly critical of Trump's interference in the proposed merger.

Baer told the Post, "Antitrust merger review is supposed to be about what benefits competition and consumers. This administration is saying the quiet part out loud: We will put our thumb on the scale, regardless of the merits, to benefit our friends and punish our enemies without regard to the law."


Trump's threat to charge media outlets with 'treason' takes a strange new turn

Robert Davis
March 16, 2026 
RAW STORY

President Donald Trump's recent call to charge media outlets with "treason" for covering the war in Iran negatively took a strange new turn on Monday night.

Over the weekend, Trump posted on Truth Social that media outlets that covered a story about Iran striking the USS Abraham Air Craft Carrier should be charged with "treason" for disseminating false information. Analysts were shocked by the threat initially, but new details that emerged on Monday night cast Trump's statement in an entirely new light.

CNN Senior Reporter Daniel Dale posted on X that he asked the White House for examples of the news coverage Trump referred to in the post. In response, Dale said he received three examples, and none of them were from American news outlets.

"The White House got back to me with three examples of media outlets that quoted Iran’s claim that it struck the USS Lincoln…but none of the outlets is American. One is Israeli, one Saudi, one Turkish," Dale posted on X.

Dale added that none of the stories included the AI videos Trump referred to in the post.

"The president had strongly suggested he was talking about US media when he said outlets that spread the Lincoln story should be charged with 'TREASON,'" Dale wrote.


All 4 living former presidents deny Trump's bizarre Iran bombing claim


Robert Davis
March 16, 2026 
RAW STORY

Aides to all four living presidents confirmed to CNN on Monday that none of them have spoken with President Donald Trump about his bombing strikes in Iran, as Trump claimed during a press conference.

Trump claimed in the Oval Office that he had spoken to a former president about bombing Iran, and that the former president had approved of the operation. Trump added that the former president claimed he "wished" he had made the decision to bomb Iran. The president also declined to identify which president he was talking about.

The four living former presidents are: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.

CNN's Jeff Zeleny and Samantha Waldenberg reached out to aides for each of the four living former presidents, all of whom told them that the former presidents did not speak to Trump about the strikes.

"A spokesman for Clinton told CNN that no recent conversations have taken place between Clinton and Trump — about Iran or anything else," they reported.


"Aides to Bush, Obama and Biden offered similar sentiments on Monday, saying there is no record of any communications with Trump," the report added.
Counterterrorism official quits over Iran war — tells Trump he was lied to
March 17, 2026 
ALTERNET

Joe Kent, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned on Tuesday, saying that he doesn't support President Donald Trump's war against Iran.

"Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby," he wrote in a resignation post on X.

Kent, a retired Green Beret combat veteran, Gold Star husband, called it an honor to work under DNI Tulsi Gabbard and for the Trump administration. He noted that he deployed 11 times.

"'I support the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, 2024, which you enacted in your first term," wrote Kent. "Until June 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trip that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation."

"Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. We cannot make this mistake again," he continued in the resignation letter.

ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl couldn't help but note that it's been a rare occurrence to see an angry resignation by a Trump official.

"Something we have rarely seen during the Trump era: a senior official resigning in protest — in this case, resigning to protest the war against Iran," he wrote on X.

Trump began strikes on Iran at the end of February and pledged that he would be done soon. When asked about details, he said he would end the war when "I feel it in my bones."


'The dominoes are starting to fall': Trump official's quitting over Iran jolts followers

Joe Kent,  director of the National Counterterrorism Center,  resigns

Tom Boggioni
March 17, 2026 
RAW STORY


National Counterterrorism Center Director Joseph Kent attends a House Homeland Security hearing entitled "Worldwide Threats to the Homeland," on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S. December 11, 2025. REUTERS
/Elizabeth Frantz

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation on X Tuesday by saying he “cannot in good conscience” back Donald Trump’s war in Iran. It delivered a jolt to the administration that is already reeling from a war that is going badly.

According to Kent, Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

In less than an hour, his X post had over 4.7 million views.

Kent, known as a card-carrying member of the MAGA movement, was both lauded and accused of treason, with all agreeing his resignation is a game-changer for Turmp. One follower observed, “The dominoes are starting to fall. Those who want to save face should do the right thing and resign immediately. The overwhelming majority of the American people reject this war.”

Podcast producer Benjamin Rubinstein added, “This is a man who actually loves his country. Bravo.”

Asked for comment, retired Brigadier General Steve Anderson told CNN that the resignation is a “terrific blow to Trump'” and the “timing couldn't be worse.”

“This is incredibly honorable but now there is gonna be a coordinated attack against you by the same people that got us into this war...thank you Joe for your service brother,” wrote Real America’s Voice personality Alex Stein.

“This is the definition of America First. Thank you, Joe,” claimed The Maine Wonk.

Highbee Nation asserted, “A Green Beret who buried his wife to terrorism just told the most powerful man on earth no more forever wars for someone else's lobby. That's not disloyalty. That's the definition of America First.”

“The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center just resigned and publicly said Iran posed no imminent threat and the war was started due to Israeli lobby pressure. This isn’t a podcaster. This isn’t a pundit. This is the person literally in charge of tracking threats to America saying there WASN’T ONE. Read that again. The highest-ranking insider just confirmed everything the ‘traitors’ were saying from day one,” noted influencer tosino007.


Senior Trump official resigns over Iran:
 'I cannot in good conscience support the war'

Alexander Willis
March 17, 2026 
RAW STORY

Joe Kent, who was tapped by President Donald Trump to lead the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned on Tuesday out of protest over the U.S. war against Iran, marking the president’s first major rebuke on the conflict from a member of his administration.

“After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today,” Kent wrote Tuesday in a statement shared on social media.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Axios reporter Barak Ravid described Kent’s resignation as being the first instance of a senior Trump administration official to step down over the U.S. war against Iran, a conflict authorized by Trump, in part, over claims that an Iranian attack on the United States was “imminent.”

Trump has dug his heels in on his administration’s war against Iran, deploying thousands of U.S. Marines to the region and striking Iran’s oil export hub “just for fun."





'It's an insult': MAGA in tailspin as Trump's terror chief quits over Iran war

Nicole Charky-Chami
March 17, 2026 
RAW STORY

MAGA followers were enraged Tuesday after Joe Kent, head of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned in protest over the U.S. war in Iran.

Kent, a longtime MAGA ally of President Donald Trump who was appointed by him, shared his public statement and rejection of the conflict in the Middle East. This was the first time an administration official had rebuked the military action and spoken out against it.

MAGA loyalists had seething responses to Kent's announcement:

"Gold Star wife here. My husband didn’t die for Israel. He died because this war has been targeting Americans for decades. Long before most people ever started paying attention. We didn’t suddenly stumble into this because of Israel. Our service members have been in the crosshairs of Iranian-backed terror networks for years. That’s the reality families like mine have lived with. So spare me the talking point that this is 'Israel’s war.' Some of us have already paid for it in American blood," Sharrell Anne, who self-describes as "America First" wrote in a post on X.

"Very disappointing from you. It's an insult to Trump to imply he has no agency and no ability to resist pressure from anyone, including Israel," Jon Murray, who shares pro-MAGA content and commentary, wrote on X.

"' Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation' ok good you left because seems like you're an ignorant ...," Samuel Cardillo, who frequently shares MAGA talking points, wrote on X.

“'Without getting us drawn into never-ending wars.' It’s been 3 weeks lol," conservative commentator and attorney Matt Bilinsky wrote on X.

"Joe Kent is a crazed egomaniac who was often at the center of national security leaks, while rarely (never?) producing any actual work. He spent all of his time working to subvert the chain of command and undermine the President of the United States. This isn’t some principled resignation—he just wanted to make a splash before getting canned. What a loser," Taylor Budowich, former deputy White House chief of staff and cabinet secretary to Trump, wrote on X.






UK

‘Peers must follow MPs and end the cruel criminalisation of women over abortion’


165 years ago women didn’t have the vote, married women couldn’t own their own property, and marital rape was legal. It’s also how long ago a law was passed that continues to define abortion as a criminal offence in England and Wales. 

This law has seen women targeted, punished, imprisoned, dragged from hospital beds to police cells, publicly shamed – mothers torn from their existing children and new babies – following complications in their abortion treatment, miscarriage, stillbirth or premature labour. More than 100 women have been criminally investigated since 2020, six have faced court and one has been sent to prison for abortion offences.

That is why I laid an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill last year to remove women from the criminal law on abortion – a change that will be up for debate and vote in the House of Lords on 18th March.

READ MORE: ‘Women’s rights are under siege worldwide – Britain can lead the fight back’

Clause 208 leaves the existing legal framework untouched: it does not alter when, how or on what grounds abortion can be provided. The 24-week limit remains, as do the clinical criteria under which abortion is permitted, and any breach will still carry a maximum life penalty for healthcare professionals and anyone assisting the woman. Abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy will rightly continue to be criminalised as they are now.

All this change does is ensure no more vulnerable women are forced to endure the cruel, outdated reality of this law – a law which carries the harshest penalty in the world for illegal abortion.

I understand if you think otherwise – unsurprisingly, there has been an inordinate level of misinformation and scaremongering levelled at this narrow yet necessary reform.

Claims that this change is ‘abortion up to birth’ are simply divorced from reality. The insinuation seems to be that women are waiting in droves to have abortions later in term. This fundamentally misunderstands the reality of having an abortion and ignores evidence from more than 50 countries around the world where this change is already in force. The simple truth is that criminalisation of women is completely unnecessary for upholding wider abortion law. 

And as a staunch advocate for tackling violence against women and girls, I find the claim that criminalisation somehow protects abused women deeply concerning. The current law puts abused women who ask for help on trial and in jail. They are unable to report violent partners who forced them into an illegal abortion because they themselves will have committed a crime. How is it right, or in her interest, that she be criminalised for being forced by an abusive partner to have an abortion outside the law? Yet that is the reality of our current system. 

I have seen others say that we should address this in other ways – that we don’t need a change in the law. This could not be further from the truth. The fact is that when national police bodies are producing guidance telling frontline officers how to get around requirements for court orders to see women’s medical records, when the Director of Public Prosecutions is failing to issue guidance around the public interest in prosecution, and when the Sentencing Council is ignoring requests to get involved – there is only one way forward. And that way is Parliament. 

The treatment of women under this law is indefensible, its harms are all too real. Last year, hundreds of MPs from across the House of Commons had the courage to stand up for what is right for women. It’s now time for the same resolve from our colleagues in the House of Lords. 


‘Iran shows why Britain must go all in on fusion’


International Fusion Energy Organization. Conductor spool,
or editorial use only. Learn more Editorial credit: Rob Crandall / Shutterstock.com

As missiles fly over the Middle East and energy markets lurch once again, Britain is confronting a truth it has refused to face for decades – we have an economy tethered to global oil and gas markets, held hostage to conflicts we cannot control. The lesson must finally be learned and Britain must do everything in its power to unshackle itself from that vulnerability. 

Renewables have a vital part to play, but fusion offers something unique. Unlike gas, its price would be driven by domestic costs rather than spot markets that spike every time a conflict erupts. That does not happen overnight, but reducing that exposure must start somewhere, and fusion can be how Britain begins to wrestle back control of its own energy prices.

Backed by £2.5 billion and a plan to support thousands of jobs by 2030, the Government’s new Fusion Energy Strategy sets out how Britain will move from world-leading research to real-world deployment. And nowhere is that clearer than at West Burton in Nottinghamshire which falls in my constituency. A former coal plant on the banks of the River Trent will now help power Britain’s next energy revolution. Construction is expected to begin from 2030, with major design, engineering and skills work happening in the years before, and the Government also exploring further incentives to attract more investment into the East Midlands fusion cluster. For communities like mine, this is real investment, real employment and real pride. The same places that once powered the UK with coal will now help power the future with clean, abundant fusion energy.

But STEP Fusion is only part of the story. The government has today committed the UK to becoming the first country in the world to offer a market framework for fusion electricity – a major moment for global investment confidence in the UK fusion industry. Through this, Britain will provide incentives to site fusion facilities in the UK, attracting the vital investment needed to turn our world-class R&D into a world-leading industry.

The Government will also shortly publish a new investment prospectus to set out the offer for global fusion companies and investors wanting to support the UK fusion ecosystem, as well as a £50 million plan to make the UK the home of fusion skills. This will train over 2,000 people in fusion related disciplines and it is essential if we want to seize the full economic opportunity ahead. 

Fusion energy is also driving innovation far beyond energy. The UK Atomic Energy Authority’s fusion research is producing new spinouts in areas like AI driven design, medical imaging, robotics and defence technology. That, along with the success of UK fusion companies shows how breakthroughs in fusion science are already spilling over into the wider economy. 

And as AI accelerates at extraordinary speed, the need for clean and sustainable power is even more important. This is why the Government’s £45million Sunrise supercomputer is so significant, giving the UK the firepower to achieve fusion breakthroughs at a pace the world hasn’t seen before, whilst also strengthening the UK’s AI prowess. 

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on TikTokBlueskyWhatsAppX and Facebook.

Fusion energy also has the potential to unlock major economic growth across the UK, with the future global fusion market estimated to be worth up to £12trillion in the second half of the century. The UK is well placed to lead that market, and we are already seeing businesses across the country benefit as the fusion supply chain expands, creating jobs, driving investment and anchoring high-value industries in every region.

Share your thoughts. Contribute on this story or tell your own by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

As Chair of the Fusion Energy All-Party Parliamentary Group, I know Parliament has a vital role to play in creating the right environment for the fusion sector to thrive. Our group brings together MPs and peers from across the political spectrum, united in recognising fusion’s potential. The publication of the Fusion Strategy is a major milestone. Now we must make sure its ambitions are matched by pace, clarity and delivery.

Fusion is no longer just a promise. Every crisis that sends energy prices soaring is a reminder of what is at stake – and a reason to move faster. With this strategy, Britain has finally begun to unshackle itself.