The electorate affirmed that the worst human being to hold the presidency deserves a second turn in the job. Despite Trump being eight years older and obviously losing his mind, despite the fact that he ran a corrosive campaign on naked malevolence, and despite his having promised to mass arrest, cage and deport immigrants, Americans rewarded him with ultimate power.

Toward the end of the 2024 election, the candidates made their closing arguments. Trump painted the United States as a dark, terrifying and infested place, festering with pet-eating immigrants, violent criminals, and deviant trans people. America was a savage hellscape where good, “normal” Americans were forgotten as their white, heterosexual world was reshaped by Democrats into something alien and repulsive.

Trump stoked conspiracy theories and promised vengeance. He mused about reporters being shot, mimed oral sex with a microphone, spewed racist lies, and threatened to order the military against the “enemy from within.” He emphasized every rotten thing about himself. None of this prevented his popularity from expanding in multiple electorates across the country; it may have even facilitated his success.

Kamala Harris articulated a hopeful future. Positioning herself as a moderate, Harris expressed a willingness to work with her political opponents. She embraced diversity and promised to better the lives of all Americans. The electorate was offered a choice between a mainstream Democrat and a candidate running the most openly fascist campaign ever undertaken by a major-party nominee for president. They chose the latter.

Voters who cast their ballots for Trump engaged in contemptible behavior, turning amoral, unserious about governing, and proving themselves undeserving of our constitutional legacy. More than a Trump problem, there’s a voter problem. If you elect a monster once, you’ve made a mistake. If you elect it twice, you’re the monster.

Unlike Trump’s first election, this one cannot be minimized as the result of an overconfident Democratic campaign and the successful con of a hundred thousand voters in a handful of swing states. This time, voters decisively chose Trump. The autocrat, who has grown more belligerent and maniacal over the years, is now is a maniac with a mandate.

Time and again, we hear the wild lies Trump‘s voters believe, such as babies being aborted after birth. We act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. The media often portrays this gullible crowd as woefully misunderstood: if only Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. That’s a myth no one should believe. They are not congenitally ignorant. They chose to close their eyes to reality.

Autocracies thrive on befuddled, ill-informed populations. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt noted, “In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.”

Harris decried Trump as a fascist, a petty tyrant, a liar. If all America needed was an articulate case for why Trump was terrible, then Harris was the right candidate. With a long career as a prosecutor, she’s taken on perpetrators of all kinds: “Predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain,” she said. “I know Donald Trump’s type.” She was the prosecutor who would defeat the felon. The voters heard her case, and they found for the defendant. America knew his type, too, and liked it.

Many thought  women would rise up in defense of bodily autonomy. And they did, but not enough. Abortion was less of a key issue than expected. Harris did win the support of 54 percent of women, lower than Biden’s 57 percent in 2020. No group of voters was more loyal to Trump than white men. He managed to drive up what were already sky-high margins with his white, blue-collar base. Male voters — terrified or resentful of women — bought into Trump’s regressive idea of masculinity in which power over women is a birthright.

Despite enthusiastic crowds and the endorsement of high profile celebrities, antagonism or apathy undermined Harris: over 7 million Biden voters did not vote for her. Trump likely won as a result. Currently, Harris has received 74 million votes, while Biden obtained over 81 million votes. Some may have even voted for Trump, who increased his 2020 vote total by over 2 million, up to 76 million. The anti-Trump coalition failed to sustain their 2020 outrage. Beyoncé, Taylor Swift and Julia Roberts lost to Hulk Hogan, Kid Rock, and Joe Rogan.

Voting in 2020 was portrayed as an act of heroism, because of the raging pandemic. Though Joe Biden provoked little passion, his campaign felt like the culmination of a liberation movement. The sense of outrage, which carried Biden to victory, was blunted for Harris. In a 2016 essay “Autocracy: Rules for Survival,” Masha Gessen wrote, “It is essential to maintain one’s capacity for shock and outrage,” otherwise apathy would set in. And once that happened, autocracy would seem as natural as the weather.

Defusing Trump outrage and hanging over the election was the festering political wound that was Democratic support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The slaughter and starvation of Palestinians — funded by U.S. taxpayers and live-streamed on social media — has triggered one of the greatest surges in progressive activism in a generation. Roused to action by their government’s complicity in Gaza’s destruction, some voted for Jill Stein, many stayed home.

Harris loyally lined up behind the despicable and unpopular blank-check policy of Biden, which demoralized the party’s base and threatened its chances in Michigan. As the carnage continued and expanded, furious Arab American and Muslim voters determined to punish the party by making it lose. It appears to have worked: Trump captured Michigan partly thanks to a shocking, winning margin in Dearborn, the largest majority Arab-American city.

Trump will not improve the lives of Palestinians, nor those of most Americans. It’s no secret that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu supported Trump over Kamala Harris. He held off on any cease-fire deal that might help Harris. Trump supported Israel’s brutal bombing campaigns in both Lebanon and Gaza and told his buddy Netanyahu ”do what you have to do.” As a “gift” to the incoming Trump administration, Netanyahu is preparing a cease-fire plan regarding its bombing of Lebanon. 

Along with recriminations about Harris’s failure to at least express more remorse about the suffering in Gaza, a profusion of Democratic self-flagellation began immediately after the brutal loss. The party was too woke. Harris — the candidate who had been a magnet for joyful enthusiasm — was disparaged. She was too centrist, too un-primaried, too female and laughed too often. She leaned too much on reproductive freedom, or gave fatally little attention to concerns about immigration.

Democrats whined further: if only Biden hadn’t waited so long to withdraw, or if only he hadn’t mumbled something about “garbage”. Pundits opined furiously and confusingly: the campaign missed what spoke to men, perhaps particularly Black men, or Latino men — or was it women? Also, Harris failed to talk enough about the kitchen-table economy and failed to address the many grievances of the working class, who are not getting their share and fear “urban” crime.

Maybe there’s a little truth in some of that, but none of it explains the magnitude of what’s happened. Despite being the best-fed, richest, and most lethally defended humans in the history of planet Earth, Americans are afraid. Despite being coddled with too much of everything: more cars, more good roads, more personal gadgets, more guns, and more freedom than any country in the world, it’s not enough. Americans are annoyed. The price of eggs went up. Gas doesn’t cost what it cost in 1989. Did America elect a dictator because Cheerios — available in about 20 flavors — hit $5.29 at the grocery store?

Americans reelected a Bigot who promotes hatred and division and who lies — blatantly, shamelessly — every time he appears in public. They chose a man described by his own former advisers as a fascist. Voters witnessed his abuse of presidential power toward fascist ends and understood that returning him to office will immunize him legally for those abuses. Their votes affirm that conspiring to disenfranchise Americans by overturning a national election does not make someone unfit for national office — even if that someone is already plotting to do it again. There’s no way to rationalize an outright Trump victory except as a despicable reflection of the American character.

As president, Trump will likely issue shock and awe executive orders that will activate some form of Trump’s MAGA-pleasing deportation threat. The logistics of a nationwide mass kidnapping of millions of “illegals,” who are “poisoning the blood” of America are unclear. Trump confirmed last Monday that his plan for mass deportations will involve a national emergency declaration and the military. If street protests are mobilized, the regime — with a bloated strongman twitching for a reason to invoke the Insurrection Act — will deploy troops. The worst-case scenarios, including razor-wired concentration camps in the desert, are beyond horrifying.

Our country has been deliberately set on fire by fellow Americans. Aside from mass deportations and contempt for climate change, human rights, and gun control, Trump will appoint a more reactionary federal judiciary and assault the press. On day one, Trump will pardon the J6ers creating a paramilitary force answerable to him. These are not the imaginings of a paranoiac. These are campaign promises announced from the podium and include a federal government stocked with fools and jesters whose highest qualification is fealty to the Great Leader.

Trump has already initiated a Cabinet reminiscent of the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, the German Expressionist film about an evil hypnotist who brainwashes automatons to commit murders for him. Trump’s lackeys and loyalists include a propagandist for Russia — Tulsi Gabbard — as Director of National Intelligence, a Fox News host and subject of sexual assault charges — Pete Hegseth — as Secretary of Defense, an End Times Christian Zionist — Mike Huckabee — as ambassador to Israel, and an accused statutory rapist — Matt Gaetz — as Attorney General.

Somehow topping all these MAGA freaks is the anti-vaxxer — Robert F. Kennedy — nominated to lead Health and Human Services. Kennedy recently commented that on its first day in power, the Trump regime will ban fluoride in water. Fluoridated water has been a favorite target of paranoid anti-Communist conspiracists dating to the 1950s. In Stanley Kubrick’s vicious satire Dr. Strangelove, General Jack D. Ripper explains that he avoids fluoridated water because it’s a Communist plot that will sap his “precious bodily fluids.”

Trump’s nominations are meant to bolster his effort to lay waste to the institutions that he has come to despise or regard as threats to his power or purse strings. “Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty,” wrote Arendt. Trump’s cabinet offers a deliberate negation or mockery of the government functions they’re supposed to administer. They are his shock troops.

Trump wants to force Senate Republicans to humiliate themselves by confirming these unqualified toadies. Republicans will not try to stop this Trump travesty or any other. On the contrary, they’ll say — and are already saying it — that they owe it to Americans to give them every stupid, destructive thing they voted for.

Having lived through the circus of Trump 1.0, the voters also affirm that they’d prefer to plunge the country back into that embarrassing prior horror: blatant corruption, blathering of state secrets, the turbo-obnoxious Trump family, freak-show personnel choices, blue-state retribution, government-by-impulse, and policy-by-tweet. Trump 2.0 will likely involve more overt and impeachable crises, like flouting court orders or the constitution. Trump’s voters are plainly willing to run the risk. Knowing now what a Trump show-presidency looks like, they’ve voted for a sequel.

The public has chosen malevolent leadership. The only consolation for the enemies within is clarity — the moral clarity of the voter’s decision is crystalline: Trump will regard his slim plurality vote margin as a “mandate” to do his worst. We hope that many of the ideas on Trump’s demented wish list will not actually come to fruition and that our democracy can once more withstand this sociopath and the lunatics who surround him. But that is just desperate, wishful thinking. As of yet, there is nothing that will break the iron grip Trump has over his cult, now joined by a plurality of Americans.

Over the past decade, opinion polls have shown Americans’ faith in their institutions waning. But no opinion poll could make this shift in values any clearer than this vote. The United States will become a different kind of country. The lesson of this election is that the American people aren’t worthy of their Constitution. They elected a president who has never read it and who, by his behavior, holds the most fundamental values and traditions of our democracy, our Constitution, in contempt. Like the counter-culture hippies and anti-Vietnam radicals of the 1960s, the enemies within are rebels — strangers in a strange land, exiled inside a country many of us no longer feel fully part of. 

In the midst of the Vietnam War and Watergate, Richard Nixon won a huge and depressing landslide reelection in 1972. In a stunning shift, this dark history was overturned with Nixon’s resignation in 1974. Change is always possible, but we should not underestimate how arduous it will be to achieve, or how long it will take. In 2020, we believed that we had broken with history, with the Trump era; in 2024, it is apparent that history has broken some part of us. Acknowledging this is not surrender but a realization that the fights ahead will be formidable, but that anything is possible.

To make that forecast, the historian conducted what he called “a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends.” Starting with the global context, he argued that, “faced with a fading superpower,” China, India, Iran, and Russia would all start to “provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace.” At home in the United States, domestic divisions would “widen into violent clashes and divisive debates… Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But, that historian concluded, “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

Now that a “far-right patriot,” one Donald J. Trump, has indeed captured (or rather recaptured) the presidency “with thundering rhetoric,” let’s explore the likelihood that a second Trump term in office, starting in the fateful year 2025, might actually bring a hasty end, silent or otherwise, to an “American Century” of global dominion.

Making the Original Prediction

Let’s begin by examining the reasoning underlying my original prediction. (Yes, of course, that historian was me.) Back in 2010, when I picked a specific date for a rising tide of American decline, this country looked unassailably strong both at home and abroad. The presidency of Barack Obama was producing a “post-racial” society. After recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. was on track for a decade of dynamic growth — the auto industry saved, oil and gas production booming, the tech sector thriving, the stock market soaring, and employment solid. Internationally, Washington was the world’s preeminent leader, with an unchallenged military, formidable diplomatic clout, unchecked economic globalization, and its democratic governance still the global norm.

Looking forward, leading historians of empire agreed that America would remain the world’s sole superpower for the foreseeable future. Writing in the Financial Times in 2002, for instance, Yale professor Paul Kennedy, author of a widely read book on imperial decline, argued that “America’s array of force is staggering,” with a mix of economic, diplomatic, and technological dominance that made it the globe’s “single superpower” without peer in the entire history of the world. Russia’s defense budget had “collapsed” and its economy was “less than that of the Netherlands.” Should China’s high growth rates continue for another 30 years, it “might be a serious challenger to U.S. predominance” — but that wouldn’t be true until 2032, if then. While America’s “unipolar moment” would surely not “continue for centuries,” its end, he predicted, “seems a long way off for now.”

Writing in a similar vein in the New York Times in February 2010, Piers Brendon, a historian of Britain’s imperial decline, dismissed the “doom mongers” who “conjure with Roman and British analogies in order to trace the decay of American hegemony.” While Rome was riven by “internecine strife” and Britain ran its empire on a shoestring budget, the U.S. was “constitutionally stable” with “an enormous industrial base.” Taking a few “relatively simple steps,” he concluded, Washington should be able to overcome current budgetary problems and perpetuate its global power indefinitely.

Buy the Book

When I made my very different prediction nine months later, I was coordinating a network of 140 historians from universities on three continents who were studying the decline of earlier empires, particularly those of Britain, France, and Spain. Beneath the surface of this country’s seeming strength, we could already see the telltale signs of decline that had led to the collapse of those earlier empires.

By 2010, economic globalization was cutting good-paying factory jobs here, income inequality was widening, and corporate bailouts were booming — all essential ingredients for rising working-class resentment and deepening domestic divisions. Foolhardy military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed by Washington elites trying to deny any sense of decline, stoked simmering anger among ordinary Americans, slowly discrediting the very idea of international commitments. And the erosion of America’s relative economic strength from half the world’s output in 1950 to a quarter in 2010 meant the wherewithal for its unipolar power was fading fast.

Only a “near-peer” competitor was needed to turn that attenuating U.S. global hegemony into accelerating imperial decline. With rapid economic growth, a vast population, and the world’s longest imperial tradition, China seemed primed to become just such a country. But back then, Washington’s foreign policy elites thought not and even admitted China to the World Trade Organization (WTO), fully confident, according to two Beltway insiders, that “U.S. power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States’ liking.”

Our group of historians, mindful of the frequent imperial wars fought when near-peer competitors finally confronted the reigning hegemon of their moment — think Germany versus Great Britain in World War I — fully expected China’s challenge would not be long in coming. Indeed, in 2012, just two years after my prediction, the U.S. National Intelligence Council warned that “China alone will probably have the largest economy, surpassing that of the United States a few years before 2030” and this country would no longer be “a hegemonic power.”

Just a year after that, China’s president, Xi Jinping, drawing on a massive $4 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves accumulated in the decade after joining the WTO, announced his bid for global power through what he called “the Belt and Road Initiative,” history’s largest development program. It was designed to make Beijing the center of the global economy.

In the following decade, the U.S.-China rivalry would become so intense that, last September, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall warned: “I’ve been closely watching the evolution of [China’s] military for 15 years. China is not a future threat; China is a threat today.”

The Global Rise of the Strongman

Another major setback for Washington’s world order, long legitimated by its promotion of democracy (whatever its own dominating tendencies), came from the rise of populist strongmen worldwide. Consider them part of a nationalist reaction to the West’s aggressive economic globalization.

At the close of the Cold War in 1991, Washington became the planet’s sole superpower, using its hegemony to forcefully promote a wide-open global economy — forming the World Trade Organization in 1995, pressing open-market “reforms” on developing economies, and knocking down tariff barriers worldwide. It also built a global communications grid by laying 700,000 miles of fiber-optic submarine cables and then launching 1,300 satellites (now 4,700).

By exploiting that very globalized economy, however, China’s industrial output soared to $3.2 trillion by 2016, surpassing both the U.S. and Japan, while simultaneously eliminating 2.4 million American jobs between 1999 and 2011, ensuring the closure of factories in countless towns across the South and Midwest. By fraying social safety nets while eroding protection for labor unions and local businesses in both the U.S. and Europe, globalization reduced the quality of life for many, while creating inequality on a staggering scale and stoking a working-class reaction that would crest in a global wave of angry populism.

Riding that wave, right-wing populists have been winning a steady succession of elections — in Russia (2000), Israel (2009), Hungary (2010), China (2012), Turkey (2014), the Philippines (2016), the U.S. (2016), Brazil (2018), Italy (2022), the Netherlands (2023), Indonesia (2024), and the U.S. again (2024).

Set aside their incendiary us-versus-them rhetoric, however, and look at their actual achievements and those right-wing demagogues turn out to have a record that can only be described as dismal. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro ravaged the vast Amazon rainforest and left office amid an abortive coup. In Russia, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, sacrificing his country’s economy to capture some more land (which it hardly lacked). In Turkey, Recep Erdogan caused a crippling debt crisis, while jailing 50,000 suspected opponents. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte murdered 30,000 suspected drug users and courted China by giving up his country’s claims in the resource-rich South China Sea. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has wreaked havoc on Gaza and neighboring lands, in part to stay in office and stay out of prison.

Prospects for Donald Trump’s Second Term

After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the — or perhaps even an — “exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries. And as it has become more of an ordinary country, it has also felt the full force of the worldwide move toward strongman rule. Not only does that global trend help explain Trump’s election and his recent reelection, but it provides some clues as to what he’s likely to do with that office the second time around.

In the globalized world America made, there is now an intimate interaction between domestic and international policy. That will soon be apparent in a second Trump administration whose policies are likely to simultaneously damage the country’s economy and further degrade Washington’s world leadership.

Let’s start with the clearest of his commitments: environmental policy. During the recent election campaign, Trump called climate change “a scam” and his transition team has already drawn up executive orders to exit from the Paris climate accords. By quitting that agreement, the U.S. will abdicate any leadership role when it comes to the most consequential issue facing the international community while reducing pressure on China to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. Since these two countries now account for nearly half (45%) of global carbon emissions, such a move will ensure that the world blows past the target of keeping this planet’s temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Centigrade until the end of the century. Instead, on a planet that’s already had 12 recent months of just such a temperature rise, that mark is expected to be permanently reached by perhaps 2029, the year Trump finishes his second term.

On the domestic side of climate policy, Trump promised last September that he would “terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam, and rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.” On the day after his election, he committed himself to increasing the country’s oil and gas production, telling a celebratory crowd, “We have more liquid gold than any country in the world.” He will undoubtedly also block wind farm leases on Federal lands and cancel the $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electrical vehicle.

As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy. In 2023, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported that, amid continuing price decreases, wind and solar power now generate electricity for less than half the cost of fossil fuels. Any attempt to slow the conversion of this country’s utilities to the most cost-effective form of energy runs a serious risk of ensuring that American-made products will be ever less competitive.

To put it bluntly, he seems to be proposing that electricity users here should pay twice as much for their power as those in other advanced nations. Similarly, as relentless engineering innovation makes electric vehicles cheaper and more reliable than petrol-powered ones, attempting to slow such an energy transition is likely to make the U.S. auto industry uncompetitive, at home and abroad.

Calling tariffs “the greatest thing ever invented,” Trump has proposed slapping a 20% duty on all foreign goods and 60% on those from China. In another instance of domestic-foreign synergy, such duties will undoubtedly end up crippling American farm exports, thanks to retaliatory overseas tariffs, while dramatically raising the cost of consumer goods for Americans, stoking inflation, and slowing consumer spending.

Reflecting his aversion to alliances and military commitments, Trump’s first foreign policy initiative will likely be an attempt to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. During a CNN town hall in May 2023, he claimed he could stop the fighting “in 24 hours.” Last July, he added: “I would tell [Ukraine’s president] Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal.”

Just two days after the November election, according to the Washington Post, Trump reputedly told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a telephone call, “not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe.” Drawing on sources inside the Trump transition team, the Wall Street Journal reported that the new administration is considering “cementing Russia’s seizure of 20% of Ukraine” and forcing Kyiv to forego its bid to join NATO, perhaps for as long as 20 years.

With Russia drained of manpower and its economy pummeled by three years of bloody warfare, a competent negotiator (should Trump actually appoint one) might indeed be able to bring a tenuous peace to a ravaged Ukraine. Since it has been Europe’s frontline of defense against a revanchist Russia, the continent’s major powers would be expected to play a significant role. But Germany’s coalition government has just collapsed; French president Emmanuel Macron is crippled by recent electoral reverses; and the NATO alliance, after three years of a shared commitment to Ukraine, faces real uncertainty with the advent of a Trump presidency.

America’s Allies

Those impending negotiations over Ukraine highlight the paramount importance of alliances for U.S. global power. For 80 years, from World War II through the Cold War and beyond, Washington relied on bilateral and multilateral alliances as a critical force multiplier. With China and Russia both rearmed and increasingly closely aligned, reliable allies have become even more important to maintaining Washington’s global presence. With 32 member nations representing a billion people and a commitment to mutual defense that has lasted 75 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is arguably the most powerful military alliance in all of modern history.

Yet Trump has long been sharply critical of it. As a candidate in 2016, he called the alliance “obsolete.” As president, he mocked the treaty’s mutual-defense clause, claiming even “tiny” Montenegro could drag the U.S. into war. While campaigning last February, he announced that he would tell Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO ally that didn’t pay what he considered its fair share.

Right after Trump’s election, caught between what one analyst called “an aggressively advancing Russia and an aggressively withdrawing America,” French President Macron insisted that the continent needed to be a “more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe in this new context.” Even if the new administration doesn’t formally withdraw from NATO, Trump’s repeated hostility, particularly toward its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to eviscerate the alliance.

In the Asia-Pacific region, the American presence rests on three sets of overlapping alliances: the AUKUS entente with Australia and Britain, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (with Australia, India, and Japan), and a chain of bilateral defense pacts stretching along the Pacific littoral from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines. Via careful diplomacy, the Biden administration strengthened those alliances, bringing two wayward allies, Australia and the Philippines that had drifted Beijing-wards, back into the Western fold. Trump’s penchant for abusing allies and, as in his first term, withdrawing from multilateral pacts is likely to weaken such ties and so American power in the region.

Although his first administration famously waged a trade war with Beijing, Trump’s attitude toward the island of Taiwan is bluntly transactional. “I think, Taiwan should pay us for defense,” he said last June, adding: “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” In October, he told the Wall Street Journal that he would not have to use military force to defend Taiwan because China’s President Xi “respects me and he knows I’m f—— crazy.” Bluster aside, Trump, unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, has never committed himself to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.

Should Beijing indeed attack Taiwan outright or, as appears more likely, impose a crippling economic blockade on the island, Trump seems unlikely to risk a war with China. The loss of Taiwan would break the U.S. position along the Pacific littoral, for 80 years the fulcrum of its global imperial posture, pushing its naval forces back to a “second island chain” running from Japan to Guam. Such a retreat would represent a major blow to America’s imperial role in the Pacific, potentially making it no longer a significant player in the security of its Asia-Pacific allies.

A Silent U.S. Recessional

Adding up the likely impact of Donald Trump’s policies in this country, Asia, Europe, and the international community generally, his second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership. As “respect for American authority” fades, Trump may yet resort to “threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But as I predicted back in 2010, it seems quite likely that “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

Copyright 2024 Alfred W. McCoy

Via Tomdispatch.com

As a start, history offers some inspiration. On issues of war and peace, the trajectory of the Reagan administration suggests how surprising hope can prove to be. The man who joked that “we begin bombing [Russia] in five minutes,” and hired a Pentagon official who told journalist Robert Scheer that America would survive a nuclear war if it had “enough shovels” to build makeshift shelters, ended up claiming that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” He even came tantalizingly close to an agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to abolish nuclear weapons altogether.

To his credit, Reagan developed a visceral opposition to such weaponry, while his wife, Nancy, urged him to reduce nuclear weapons as a way to burnish his legacy. A Washington Post account of her role noted that “[s]he made no secret of her dream that a man once branded as a cowboy and a jingoist might even win the Nobel Peace Prize.” Such personal factors did come into play, but the primary driver of Reagan’s change of heart was the same thing that undergirds so many significant changes in public policy — dedicated organizing and public pressure.

Reagan’s presidency coincided with the rise of the largest, most mainstream anti-nuclear movement in American history, the nuclear freeze campaign.

Along the way, in June 1982, one million people rallied for disarmament in New York’s Central Park. And that movement had an impact. As Reagan National Security Advisor Robert MacFarlane pointed out at the time, “We took it [the freeze campaign] as a serious movement that could undermine congressional support for the [nuclear] modernization program, and potentially… a serious partisan political threat that could affect the election in `84.”

Reagan’s response was twofold. He proposed a technical solution, pledging to build an impenetrable shield against incoming missiles called the Strategic Defense Initiative (more popularly known as the Star Wars program). That impenetrable shield never came to be, but the quest to develop it deposited tens of billions of dollars in the coffers of major weapons contractors like Lockheed and Raytheon.

The second prong of Reagan’s response was a series of nuclear arms control proposals, welcomed by reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, including a discussion of the possibility of eliminating the two sides’ nuclear arsenals altogether. The idea of abolishing nuclear weapons didn’t come to fruition, but the Reagan administration and its successor, that of George H.W. Bush, did at least end up implementing substantial cuts to the American nuclear arsenal.

So, in a few short years, Reagan, the nuclear hawk, was transformed into Reagan, the arms-control-supporter, largely due to concerted public pressure. All of which goes to show that organizing does matter and that, given enough political will and public engagement, dark times can be turned around.

Trump at Peace (and War)

Donald Trump is nothing if not a top-flight marketeer — a walking, talking brand. And his brand is as a tough guy and a deal maker, even if the only time he’s truly lived up to that image was as an imaginary businessman on television.

But because Trump, lacking a fixed ideology — unless you count narcissism — is largely transactional, his positions on war and peace remain remarkably unpredictable. His first run for office was marked by his relentless criticism of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a rhetorical weapon he deployed with great skill against both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. That he failed to oppose the war when it mattered — during the conflict — didn’t change the fact that many of his supporters thought of him as the anti-interventionist candidate.

Buy the Book

To his credit, Trump didn’t add any major boots-on-the-ground conflicts to the conflicts he inherited. But he did serious damage as an arms dealer, staunchly supporting Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen, even after that regime murdered U.S.-resident and Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. In a statement after the murder, Trump bluntly said that he didn’t want to cut off arms to the Saudi regime because it would take business away from “Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors.”

Trump also did great damage to the architecture of international arms control by withdrawing from a treaty with Russia on intermediate-range nuclear forces and the Iran nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. If those agreements were still in place, the risks posed by the current conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East would be lower, and they might have served as building blocks in efforts to step back from such conflicts and return to a world of greater cooperation.

But there is another side to Trump, too. There’s the figure who periodically trashes the big weapons makers and their allies as greedy predators trying to line their own pockets at taxpayer expense. For example, in a September speech in Wisconsin, after a long rant about how he was being unfairly treated by the legal system, Trump announced that “I will expel warmongers. We have these people, they want to go to war all the time. You know why? Missiles are $2 million apiece. That’s why. They love to drop missiles all over the place.” And then he added, referring to his previous presidency, “I had no wars.” If past practice is any indication, Trump will not follow through on such a pledge. But the fact that he felt compelled to say it is at least instructive. There is clearly a portion of Trump’s base that’s tired of endless wars and skeptical of the machinations of the nation’s major defense contractors.

Trump has also said that he will end the war in Ukraine on day one. If so, it may be the peace of the graveyard, in the sense that he’ll cut off all U.S. support for Ukraine and let Russia roll over them. But his support for peace in Ukraine, if one can call it that, is not replicated in his other strategic views, which include a confrontational stance towards China, a pledge to further militarize the U.S.-Mexican border, and a call for Benjamin Netanyahu to “finish the job” in Gaza.

The last thing to consider in assessing what Trump’s military policies might look like is his administration’s close association with the most unhinged representatives of Silicon Valley’s military tech surge. For instance, Peter Thiel, founder of the emerging military tech firm Palantir, gave J.D. Vance, Trump’s vice president, a job at one of his companies and later donated large sums to his successful run for the Senate from Ohio. The new-age militarists of Silicon Valley loudly applauded the choice of Vance, whom they see as their man in the White House.

All of this adds up to what might be thought of as the Trump conundrum when it comes to war and peace and, to deal with it, a peace movement is truly needed.

Peace Resistance

For any peace movement, figuring out how to approach Trump will be like shadow boxing — trying to imagine what position he’s likely to take next.

The biggest problem in working for peace under a Trump presidency may involve whether groups are even allowed to organize without facing systematic government repression. After all, in the past, Trump has labeled his opponents with the Hitlerian-style insult “vermin” and threatened to jail any number of those he’s designated as his enemies.

Of course, the first job of any future peace movement (which would have applied as well had the Democrats taken the White House) will simply be to grow into a viable political force in such a difficult political climate.

The best way forward would undoubtedly be to knit together a coalition of organizations already opposing some aspect of American militarism — from the Gaza ceasefire movement and antinuclear groups to unions seeking to reduce the roles their members play in arms production, progressive veterans, big-tent organizations like the Poor People’s Campaign, groups opposed to the militarization of the Mexican border, organizations against the further militarization of the police, and climate activists concerned with the Pentagon’s striking role in pouring greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere. A coordinated effort by such movements could generate real political clout, even if it didn’t involve forming a new mega-organization. Rather, it could be a flexible, resilient network capable of focusing its power on issues of mutual concern at key moments. Such a network would, however, require a deeper kind of relationship-building among individuals and organizations than currently exists, based on truly listening to one another’s perspectives and respecting differences on what end state we’re ultimately aiming for.

Even as peace and justice organizations paint a picture of what a better world might look like, they may be able to win some short-term reforms, including some that could even garner bipartisan mainstream support. One thing that the American roles in the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza and plans to arm up for a potential conflict with China have demonstrated is that the American system for developing and purchasing weapons is, at the very least, broken. The weapons are far too costly, take too long to produce, are too complex to maintain, and are often so loaded with unnecessary bells and whistles that they never work as advertised.

A revival of something along the lines of the bipartisan military reform caucus of the 1980s, a group that included powerful Republicans like former Georgia representative Newt Gingrich, is in order. The goal would be to produce cheaper, simpler weapons that can be turned out quickly and maintained effectively. Add to that the kinds of measures for curbing price gouging, holding contractors responsible for cost overruns, and preventing arms makers from bidding up their own stock prices (as advocated relentlessly by Senator Elizabeth Warren), and a left-right coalition might be conceivable even in today’s bitterly divided Congress and the Trump era.

After all, the most hawkish of hawks shouldn’t be in favor of wasting increasingly scarce tax dollars on weapons of little value to troops in the field. And even the Pentagon has tired of the practice of letting the military services submit “wish lists” to Congress for items that didn’t make it into the department’s official budget submission. Such measures, of course, would hardly end war in our time, but they could start a necessary process of reducing the increasingly unchecked power of the Lockheed Martins and Raytheons of our world.

There are also issues that impact all progressive movements like voter suppression, money in politics, political corruption, crackdowns on free speech and the right of political assembly, and so much more that will have to be addressed for groups to work on virtually any issue of importance. So, an all-hands-on-deck approach to the coming world of Donald Trump and crew is distinctly in order.

An invigorated network for peace, justice, and human rights writ large will also need a new approach to leadership. Old-guard, largely white leaders (like me) need to make room for and elevate voices that have either been vilified or ignored in mainstream discourse all these years. Groups fighting on the front lines against oppression have already faced and survived the kinds of crackdowns that some of us fear but have yet to experience ourselves. Their knowledge will be crucial going forward. In addition, in keeping with the old adage that one should work locally but think globally, it will be important to honor and support local organizing. Groups like the Poor People’s Campaign and the progressive feminist outfit Madre have been working along such lines and can offer crucial lessons in how to link strategies of basic survival with demands for fundamental change.

Last, but not least, while such organizing activities will undoubtedly involve real risks, there must be joy in the struggle, too. I’m reminded of civil rights activists singing freedom songs in jail. My favorite of that era isn’t “We Shall Overcome” — although overcome we must — but “Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Round,” which includes the lyric “gonna keep on walkin’, keep on talkin’, gonna build a brand-new world.” That may seem like a distant dream in the wake of the recent elections, but it’s all the more necessary because of that.

Victory is by no means assured, but what alternative do we have other than to continue to fight for a better, more just world? To do so will call for a broad-based, courageous, creative, and committed movement of the kind that has achieved other great transformations in American history, from securing the end of slavery to a woman’s right to vote to beginning the process of giving LGBTQ people full citizenship rights.

Time is short, when it comes to the state of this planet and war, but success is still possible if we act with what Martin Luther King, Jr., once called “the fierce urgency of now.”

Copyright 2024 William D. Hartung

Via Tomdispatch.com

( Al Jazeera English ) – Donald Trump’s re-election as president of the United States marks a shift in US policy – from the Joe Biden administration’s hypocritical denial of American complicity in Zionist genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity to an unapologetic endorsement of all these actions.

Besides bringing Washington’s support for all of Israel’s excesses, crimes and violations out into the open, Trump’s return to the White House will also intensify and make even more overt the persecution of those who dare resist white supremacy and its Zionist incarnation.

Under Biden, those who opposed American-funded and -facilitated Zionist genocide, from university students and civil servants to racial justice activists and authors, already faced threats from politicians, police harassment, baseless accusations of anti-Semitism in the media and relentless intimidation from employers, university administrators and far-right-linked Zionist “self-defence” groups.

And yet, Trump says Biden has been “weak” in countering “Hamas radicals” and he would do even more to shut down anticolonial resistance as president. On the campaign trail, he called for the deportation of foreign nationals who support Palestinian resistance and, since being elected, has nominated pro-Israel hawks to key intelligence and security posts in his government, signalling he intends to keep his promises on cracking down on anti-Zionist activists. For example, Trump named Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor who once introduced a bill cracking down on criticism of Israel on the grounds of “ensuring the security of God’s chosen people”, as his secretary of homeland security.

Another indication that Trump’s second term will be marked by a new crackdown on anticolonial and antiracist resistance came in the form of a strategy to “combat anti-Semitism” titled “Project Esther”, drafted by the prominent Trump-aligned conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation.

The Heritage Foundation has been open about its intention to transform “Project Esther” into government policy under a second Trump administration. It states within the strategy document itself – which was published on October 7 to mark the first anniversary of the Hamas attacks on Israel – that it hopes “Project Esther” would present “an opportunity for public-private partnership when a willing administration occupies the White House”.

Created by the same minds that brought us the authoritarian, Christian nationalist “Project 2025”, “Project Esther” syncretises the story of Queen Esther, the Jewish heroine celebrated during Purim for saving Jews of ancient Persia from extermination at the hands of Vizier Haman, with modern day Zionist narratives of defence and victimhood to depict her as a defender of Jews against activists, academics and progressive members of Congress in the US who oppose racism, apartheid and genocide. The strategy paper, supposedly designed to be “a blueprint to counter anti-Semitism in the United States”, includes several fundamental aspects of fascistic thought and practice as outlined by Umberto Eco, such as syncretic culture, xenophobia, a cult of heroism and anti-intellectualism.

Targeted individuals – including numerous Black, Brown and Jewish elected representatives who voiced any criticism of Israel, including Senators Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer – are collectively mischaracterised as members of “Hamas Support Organisations (HSO)”, part of a “Hamas Support Network” and equated with Purim’s villain, Haman. Through this framing, the campaign targets prominent social justice advocates and progressive Democratic Party representatives as enemies of the Jewish people, using the mythology of Queen Esther to justify their persecution and repression.

“Project Esther” shamelessly states its aims to eliminate anticolonial perspectives from the US education system, limit the dissemination of related information and restrict advocates’ access to American society, the economy and Congress. It seeks to prosecute alleged legal and criminal violations by “HSO” members, disrupt their communications, restrict demonstrations and rally the Jewish community, allies and the American public against anticolonial resistance movements.

“Crushing Resistance,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024.

With fearmongering rhetoric draped in patriotism and “American values” and the latest Zionist spin on rebranding offensive aggression as “defence”, “Project Esther” institutionalises repression of dissent within a fallacious, fascistic theoretical framework, casting itself as the final bulwark against an imaginary threat of “foreign influence” and valiant protector of citizens from brown-skinned heathen hordes who have supposedly promised to infect white American open society with an anticapitalist agenda. Typically, “Project Esther” ideologues see themselves as heroes, courageously waging a holy war, much to the tune of the Ku Klux Klan’s infamous portrayal in Birth of a Nation.

Calling on “the silent majority” to “break its silence and speak” to “recover its voice and convert its words into actions to render impotent an illegitimate, hateful minority that threatens America’s soul” by, among other accusations, “corrupting our education system”, “Project Esther” weaponises xenophobic trends bolstered by the incoming Trump administration to threaten and fracture anticolonial movements that conscientiously oppose Zionism and white supremacy alike.

Under the guise of combating hate and appealing to a supposedly terrorised and humiliated underclass, “Project Esther” seeks to frame antiracist opposition to Zionist apartheid and genocide as inherently anti-Semitic. However, this exposes Zionism itself as white supremacy and a modern embodiment of anti-Semitic ideology, much like Haman in the myth of Queen Esther, actively targeting Jewish organisations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and the Reformed Jewish movement.

“Project Esther” criticises what it sees as “complacency” within the American Jewish community, invoking the Zionist-manufactured anti-Semitic ideal of a “new Jew” who rejects traditional beliefs that interpret oppression and hardship as divine punishment for sins. This vision disparages traditional reliance on defence as passive and weak, promoting instead an assertive, offensive approach to resistance. In line with this view, Zionists adopt the anti-Semitic notion that Jews have been responsible for their own suffering, advocating for segregation and land acquisition in a new homeland as the ultimate solution.

Notably, fearmongering has long been used by Zionists to encourage Jewish, preferably white, immigration to Israel as a means to restock the Israeli military and combat the Palestinian “demographic threat”. By amplifying the partnership between US white supremacy and Zionist expansionism, “Project Esther” presents a serious threat to anticolonial and justice-oriented intersectional movements across the country, on the one hand, and minorities, including Jews, on the other.

“Project Esther” promises to continue to speed up the mobilisation of Zionists and right-wing anti-Semites, now emboldened by Trump’s victory, to dismantle resistance to their racist policies through financial and academic audits, “name and shame” campaigns and “lawfare”. While shielding Zionist policies and aligning with US white supremacy, the document – riddled with misinformation about “anti-Israel and anti-Zionist Jew-haters attempting to lay siege to our education system, political processes, and government” – reinforces the incoming Trump administration as well as Zionist vigilante groups like the “Jewish Defence League” and their natural allies, American neo-Nazis, to stifle free speech and dissent.

Ultimately, campaigns like “Project Esther” manipulate Jewish historical trauma to promote white supremacy and suppress anticolonial, antiracist movements while gaslighting the public to accept Palestinian solidarity, even when expressed by Jews, as anti-Semitic. This alignment not only stifles dissent to right-wing agendas, it also perpetuates a fascist narrative that promotes violence against those who resist oppression, casting them as an existential threat. This Zionist-white supremacist partnership poses a direct challenge to justice movements, and humanity as a whole, using fear, propaganda and violence to undermine efforts for genuine solidarity and liberation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s or Informed Comment’s editorial stance.

Reprinted with the author’s permission from Al Jazeera English.

( The New Arab ) – In what war criminal and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “history’s greatest comeback,” sexual predator, game show host and former Wrestlemania idol Donald Trump was re-elected as US President.

Netanyahu, ever quick to kiss Trump’s ring, has been scheming toward this very moment since last October when Hamas fighters embarrassed his government by breaking out of Gaza’s prison walls and attacking Israeli military bases.

Indeed, Netanyahu’s investment paid off. Trump’s re-election reshuffles the Middle East colonial deck in Netanyahu’s favour, shifting US policy from the Democratic Party’s hypocritical complicity with and denial of Zionist genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity to a shameless embrace and encouragement of these malevolent actions.

Though historically Trump has been far from an ally to the Palestinian people, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and recently using “Palestinian” as a pejorative on the campaign trail, he sent a message to Netanyahu to conclude the “Gaza war” by inauguration day.

Trump likely seeks to distance himself from the growing discontent over the Biden administration’s perceived weakness in failing to rein in its Israeli junior partner, allowing him to focus on advancing a series of xenophobic, regressive domestic policies aimed at “Making America Great Again.” 

Emboldened by Trump’s green light and timeline, Netanyahu may escalate his genocidal actions leading up to the inauguration, while a lame-duck President and defeated Vice President lick their wounds and walk off into the sunset, hopefully via The Hague.

That said, Trump is anything but predictable and could very well shift course entirely due to Netanyahu’s persistent grovelling, providing continued imperial backing for belligerent Zionist expansionism. 

In their demagoguery, corruption, racism and lack of social conscience, Trump and Netanyahu are mirror fascist images.

They deploy a right-wing, ethnocentric populist appeal with dog whistles and fear-mongering to consolidate their power. Operating above and outside the law, they are both avoiding corruption trials, inhabiting the same unrestrained, tyrannical Hobbesian world.

Essentially, Trump and Netanyahu aim to promote private capital by fragmenting the working class, pushing relentless privatisation of social resources and eroding workers’ rights and union protections. They rely on a fabricated white, Western “nation” to advance their nationalist agendas, claiming to protect the purity and security of their in-groups and white, Western interests while promoting a racist capitalist system of global apartheid.

Raised in the shadows of powerful fathers, the two leaders developed a narcissistic need for power, fame and wealth, indulging in corrupt extravagance and throwing spiteful tantrums when challenged.

Their motivations centre on domination, personal gain and the thrill of victory, driven by an insatiable desire to inflate their own grandiose egos. With little regard for integrity or the welfare of others, they routinely scapegoat society’s disadvantaged people to deflect criticism and wield power, prioritising in-group social identity over truth and morality.

Media manipulation is another shared skill. Trump, the reality show star, mastered this during his campaigns, using an array of far-right media networks to spread misinformation, xenophobia and deflect criticism.

Similarly, drawing on skill first honed as a furniture salesman, Netanyahu, the quintessential Teflon politician, has polished the arts of spin, cajolery and propaganda, deftly seizing on the October 7 events to push his agenda unchecked.

With atrocity propaganda eagerly consumed by Israel’s compliant press and promoted by a liberal Zionist “opposition,” he shepherds the Israeli flock to endless war, perpetually delaying his pending corruption trial.

Trump and Netanyahu’s Ur-Fascism

Beyond similarities in their backgrounds, personalities and motivations, Trump and Netanyahu exemplify figureheads of what Italian writer and philosopher Umberto Eco described as “Ur-fascism.’ 

Ur-Fascism combines traditionalism, irrationalism and authoritarianism to manipulate and control through several defining traits.

It adopts a cult of tradition, whether a delusion of a once “great” America, or a vast Judean Kingdom, fusing diverse, often contradictory teachings into an unchangeable “truth,” rejecting intellectual progress and embracing mysticism to legitimise its ideology. This rejection of modernism ties into an anti-Enlightenment stance, superficially accepting technology yet viewing reason, rationality and liberal values as corrupt.

Irrationalism lies at Ur-Fascism’s core, glorifying action over thought and condemning intellectual culture as weak and untrustworthy.

In this environment, disagreement equals betrayal, and questioning established norms is cast as subversive. Thriving on a fear of difference, it fosters racism and xenophobia, uniting followers against outsiders as a trick to divert attention from internal corruption.

Ur-Fascism is nurtured by social frustration, appealing to a disillusioned middle class and those lacking social identity by promoting nationalism and a sense of unity through battles with imagined enemies.

“Fascist Hell,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

Whether through Trump’s villainisation of immigrants or Netanyahu’s “Amalek,” followers are made to feel both humiliated by and superior to their enemies, creating a contradiction that leads to inevitable defeat.

This struggle manifests in a heroic narrative where death and martyrdom are celebrated. Toxic masculinity further defines Ur-Fascism, with disdain for women and nonstandard sexualities and a fetishisation of violence and weapons. 

Misogynoir, deeply embedded in Zionist and American white supremacist ideology, fuses religious and fascistic dogmas to cast non-whites, including immigrants and Palestinians as “demographic threats” while erasing Indigenous female identities and lives.

In place of these identities, a Western femininity is constructed, where women are integrated into male-dominated, capitalist and militaristic structures “whether they like it or not.” In fascistic, genocidal escapades, controlling women, who uphold cultural, reproductive and territorial continuity, symbolises ultimate conquest. 

Ur-Fascism’s qualitative populism denies individual rights, presenting the people as a unified entity whose will is interpreted by the leader, bypassing democracy through controlled media and staged public support.

Language is deliberately simplified to suppress critical thinking, reminiscent of Orwell’s Newspeak, often disguised in seemingly innocuous forms like talk shows. Through this web of manipulation, Ur-Fascism ultimately seeks to dismantle rational discourse, undermine democracy and create a society ruled by fear, conformity and unquestioning loyalty to a single leader.

Globalisation of white supremacy

The Trump-aligned Heritage foundation has produced complementary documents which outline the globalisation of American white supremacy and Zionism with “Project 2025” and “Project Esther,” respectively.

The texts, which read like dystopian fascist manifestos, detail plans which attempt to institutionalise apartheid and genocide, with vigilante groups under the guise of ‘self defence’ as enforcers.

Netanyahu’s appointment of Yechiel Leiter — a prominent settler and former member of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), an FBI designated terrorist organisation — as ambassador to the US signals his intent to escalate his campaign in Gaza, push toward the annexation of the West Bank and embolden already manifest fascist Zionist mob attacks with the assistance of Mossad beyond Israel (e.g. Amsterdam, Toronto).

In a possible scenario, if Netanyahu persists in his crusade, Trump could broker one of his signature “deals,” offering to recognise annexation of the West Bank, a move articulated by far-right Israeli Minister Smotrich, in exchange for a halt to Zionist aggression against Lebanon and Iran. Trump could then posture as a “peacemaker,” at the expense of the Palestinian and Lebanese people, of course.

That said, recent reports of an Iranian plot to assassinate Trump may prompt the vindictive President-elect to abandon any thoughts of diplomacy with Iran, aligning perfectly with Netanyahu’s fervent ambitions to pull US forces into a war with Iran in a fascist tag-team effort straight from hell.

Reprinted from The New Arab with the author’s permission.

( Tomdispatch.com ) – I thought I was done with free speech. For nearly two decades, I reported on it for the international magazine Index on Censorship. I wrote a book, Outspoken: Free Speech Stories, about controversies over it. I even sang “I Like to Be in America” at the top of my lungs at an around-the-clock banned-book event organized by the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression after the musical “West Side Story” was canceled at a local high school because of its demeaning stereotypes of Puerto Ricans. I was ready to move on. I was done.

As it happened, though, free speech — or, more accurately, attacks on it — wasn’t done with me, or with most Americans, as a matter of fact. On the contrary, efforts to stifle expression of all sorts keep popping up like Whac-A-Mole on steroids. Daily, we hear about another book pulled from a school; another protest closed down on a college campus; another university president bowing to alumni pressure; another journalist suspended over a post on social media; another politically outspoken artist denied a spot in an exhibition; another young adult novel canceled for cultural insensitivity; another drag-queen story hour attacked at a library; another parent demanding control over how pronouns are used at school; another panic over the dangers lurking in AI; another op-ed fretting that even a passing acquaintance with the wrong word, picture, implication, or idea will puncture the fragile mental health of young people. 

The list ranges from the ditzy to the draconian and it’s very long. Even conduct can get ensnared in censorship battles, as abortion has over what information healthcare providers are allowed to offer or what information crisis pregnancy centers (whose purpose is to dissuade women from seeking abortions) can be required to offer. Looming over it all, we just had an election brimming with repellent utterances financed by gobs of corporate money, which, the Supreme Court ruled in its 2010 Citizens United decision, is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

Buy the Book

I suspect that if you live long enough, everything begins to seem like a rerun (as much of this has for me). The actors may change — new groups of concerned moms replace old groups who called themselves concerned mothers; antiracists police academic speech, when once it was anti-porn feminists who did it; AI becomes the new Wild West overtaking that lawless territory of yore, the World Wide Web — but the script is still the same.

It’s hard not to respond to the outrage du jour and I’m finding perspective elusive in the aftermath of the latest disastrous election, but I do know this: the urge to censor will continue in old and new forms, regardless of who controls the White House. I don’t mean to be setting up a false equivalence here. The Trump presidency already looks primed to indulge his authoritarian proclivities and unleash mobs of freelance vigilantes, and that should frighten the hell out of all of us. I do mean to point out that the instinct to cover other people’s mouths, eyes, and ears is ancient and persistent and not necessarily restricted to those we disagree with. But now, of all times, given what’s heading our way, we need a capacious view and robust defense of the First Amendment from all quarters — as we always have.

Make No Law 

In a succinct 45 words, the First Amendment protects citizens from governmental restrictions on religious practices, speech, the press, and public airings of grievances in that order. It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? But if a devil is ever in the details, it’s here, and the courts have been trying to sort those out over the last century or more. Working against such protections are the many often insidious ways to stifle expression, disagreement, and protest — in other words, censorship. Long ago, American abolitionist and social reformer Frederick Douglass said, “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong that will be imposed upon them.” It was a warning that the ensuing 167 years haven’t proven wrong.

Censorship is used against vulnerable people by those who have the power to do so. The role such power plays became apparent in the last days of the recent election campaign when the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, at the insistence of their owners, declined to endorse anyone for president. Commentary by those who still care what the news media does ranged from a twist of the knife into the Post‘s Orwellian slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” to assessments of the purpose or value of endorsements in the first place. These weren’t the only papers not to endorse a presidential candidate, but it’s hard not to read the motivation of their billionaire owners, Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, as cowardice and self-interest rather than the principles they claimed they were supporting. 

Newspapers, print or digital, have always been gatekeepers of who and what gets covered, even as their influence has declined in the age of social media. Usually, political endorsements are crafted by editorial boards but are ultimately the prerogative of publishers. The obvious conflict of interest in each of those cases, however, speaks volumes about the drawback of news media being in the hands of ultra-rich individuals with competing business concerns. 

Journalists already expect to be very vulnerable during Donald Trump’s next term as president. After all, he’s called them an “enemy of the people,” encouraged violence against them, and never made a secret of how he resents them, even as he’s also courted them relentlessly. During his administration, he seized the phone records of reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN; called for revoking the broadcast licenses of national news organizations; and vowed to jail journalists who refuse to identify their confidential sources, later tossing editors and publishers into that threatened mix for good measure. 

It can be hard to tell if Trump means what he says or can even say what he means, but you can bet that, with an enemies list that makes President Richard Nixon look like a piker, he intends to try to hobble the press in multiple ways. There are limits to what any president can do in that realm, but while challenges to the First Amendment usually end up in the courts, in the time the cases take to be resolved, Trump can make the lives of journalists and publishers miserable indeed.

Tinker, Tailor, Journalist, Spy

Among the threats keeping free press advocates up at night is abuse of the Espionage Act. That law dates from 1917 during World War I, when it was used to prosecute antidraft and antiwar activists and is now used to prosecute government employees for revealing confidential information.

Before Trump himself was charged under the Espionage Act for illegally retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office, his Justice Department used it to prosecute six people for disclosing classified information. That included Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on conspiracy charges — the first time the Espionage Act had ever been used against someone for simply publishing such information. The case continued under President Biden until Assange’s plea deal this past summer, when he admitted guilt in conspiring to obtain and disclose confidential U.S. documents, thereby setting an unnerving precedent for our media future.

In his first term, Trump’s was a particularly leaky White House, but fewer leakers (or whistleblowers, depending on your perspective) were indicted under the Espionage Act then than during Barack Obama’s administration, which still holds the record with eight prosecutions, more than all previous presidencies combined. That set the tone for intolerance of leaks, while ensnaring journalists trying to protect their sources. In a notably durable case – it went on from 2008 to 2015 — James Risen, then a New York Times reporter, fought the government’s insistence that he testify about a confidential source he used for a book about the CIA. Although Obama’s Justice Department ultimately withdrew its subpoena, Risen’s protracted legal battle clearly had a chilling effect (as it was undoubtedly meant to). 

Governments of all political dispositions keep secrets and seldom look kindly on anyone who spills them. It is, however, the job of journalists to inform the public about what the government is doing and that, almost by definition, can involve delving into secrets. Journalists as a breed are not easily scared into silence, and no American journalist has been found guilty under the Espionage Act so far, but that law still remains a powerful tool of suppression, open to abuse by any president. It has historically made self-censorship on the part of reporters, editors, and publishers an appealing accommodation.

Testing the Limits

Years ago, the legal theorist Thomas Emerson pointed to how consistently expression has indeed been restricted during dark times in American history. He could, in fact, have been writing about the response to protests over the war in Gaza on American campuses, where restrictions came, not from a government hostile to unfettered inquiry, but from institutions whose purpose is supposedly to foster and promote it.

After a fractious spring, colleges and universities around the country were determined to restore order. Going into the fall semester, they changed rules, strengthened punishments, and increased the ways they monitored expressive activities. To be fair, many of them also declared their intention to maintain a climate of open discussion and learning. Left unsaid was their need to mollify their funders, including the federal government. 

In a message sent to college and university presidents last April, the ACLU recognized the tough spot administrators were in and acknowledged the need for some restrictions, but also warned that “campus leaders must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions to advance their own notoriety or partisan agendas.”

As if in direct rebuttal, on Halloween, the newly philosemitic House Committee on Education and the Workforce issued its report on campus antisemitism. Harvard (whose previous president Claudine Gay had been forced out, in part, because of her testimony to the committee) played a large role in that report’s claims of rampant on-campus antisemitism and civil rights abuses. It charged that the school’s administration had fumbled its public statements, that its faculty had intervened “to prevent meaningful discipline,” and that Gay had “launched into a personal attack” on Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican committee member and Harvard graduate, at a Board of Overseers meeting. The report included emails and texts revealing school administrators tying themselves in knots over language that tried to appease everyone and ended up pleasing no one. The overarching tone of the report, though, was outrage that Gay and other university presidents didn’t show proper obeisance to the committee or rain sufficient punishment on their students’ heads.

Harvard continues to struggle. In September, a group of students staged a “study-in” at Widener, the school’s main library. Wearing keffiyehs, they worked silently at laptops bearing messages like “Israel bombs, Harvard pays.” The administration responded by barring a dozen protesters from that library (but not from accessing library materials) for two weeks, whereupon 30 professors staged their own “study-in” to protest the punishment and were similarly barred from the library.

The administration backed up its actions by pointing to an official statement from last January clarifying that protests are impermissible in several settings, including libraries, and maintained that the students had been forewarned. Moreover, civil disobedience comes with consequences. No doubt the protesters were testing the administration and, had they gotten no response, probably would have tried another provocation. As Harry Lewis, a former Harvard dean and current professor, told The Boston Globe, “Students will always outsmart you on regulating these things unless they buy into the principles.” Still, administrators had considerable leeway in deciding how to respond and they chose the punitive option.

Getting a buy-in sounds like what Wesleyan University President Michael Roth aimed for in a manifesto of sorts that he wrote last May, as students erected a protest encampment on his campus. Laying out his thinking on the importance of tolerating or even encouraging peaceful student protests over the war in Gaza, he wrote, “Neutrality is complicity,” adding, “I don’t get to choose the protesters’ messages. I do want to pay attention to them… How can I not respect students for paying attention to things that matter so much?” It was heartening to read.

Alas, the tolerance didn’t hold. In this political moment, it probably couldn’t. In September, Roth called in city police when students staged a sit-in at the university’s investment office just before a vote by its board of trustees on divesting from companies that support the Israeli military. Five students were placed on disciplinary probation for a year and, after a pro-divestment rally the next day, eight students received disciplinary charge letters for breaking a slew of rules. 

Why Fight It

The right to free expression is the one that other democratic rights we hold dear rely on. Respecting it allows us to find better resolutions to societal tensions and interpersonal dissonance than outlawing words. But the First Amendment comes with inherent contradictions so, bless its confusing little heart, it manages to piss off nearly everyone sooner or later. Self-protection is innate, tolerance an acquired taste. 

One of the stumbling blocks is that the First Amendment defends speech we find odious along with speech we like, ideas that frighten us along with ideas we embrace, jack-booted marches along with pink-hatted ones. After all, popular speech doesn’t need protection. It’s the marginal stuff that does. But the marginal might be — today or sometime in the future — what we ourselves want to say, support, or advocate.

And so, I return to those long-ago banned book readings, which culminated with everyone reciting the First Amendment together, a tradition I continued with my journalism students whenever I taught about press freedoms. Speaking words out loud is different from reading them silently. You hear and know them, sometimes for what seems like the first time. Maybe that’s why our communal celebration of the First Amendment seemed to amuse, embarrass, and impress the students in unequal measure. I think they got it, though. 

I recognize that this kind of exhortation is many planks short of a strategy, but it’s a place to start, especially in the age of Donald Trump, because, in the end, the best reason to embrace and protect the First Amendment is that we will miss it when it’s gone.

Copyright 2024 Nan Levinson

Tomdispatch.com

Yet they refuse to believe that while in office Trump put forth policies “designed to cut health care, food and housing programs and labor protections for poor and working-class Americans.” Under Trump, the income gap between the richest and poorest income brackets grew by 9% annually, leaving those with stagnant wages in low-paying jobs with little prospect of upward mobility.

Political analysts have done a reasonably good job of identifying the factors that helped Trump to victory. Still, we are mystified by what drove so many working-class males, including a significantly large number of blacks and Latinos, to choose Trump, despite Bidden-Harris’s concrete policies to help working-class Americans. By voting for Trump, they were voting against their self-interest. Psychology can help us better understand the root cause of this puzzle. The place to begin is the provenance of the “rage” that Trump has so effectively capitalized upon. His unrelenting rageful rhetorics were not intended as a steppingstone to constructive solutions to address the grievances of the working class. It was rage for the sake of rage against all political and social institutions. These had to be destroyed with virtually no plans to replace them.

As a psychologist/psychoanalyst, I focus on important challenges besetting the development of normal masculinity that embraces the experiences of strength, generativity, relevance, productivity, and reasonable power. Usually, these experiences develop within a family setting in which the son successfully experiences himself as a chip off the old block through identification with a capable, loving father. However, despite the strong presence of the father within the family milieu, if the society at large does not treat the father’s role as a respectful equal, the son will experience a huge sense of shame which is channeled into anger and resentment resulting from his self-respect having been compromised. We know that poverty and the stress of incessant struggles for survival reduce the chance that the father could live up to the expectations of the son as a positive loving model of identification. Alcoholism, drug addiction, and domestic violence are some of the most damaging consequences resulting from the generational transmission of trauma within this group which society habitually neglects. America’s increasing wealth inequality exacerbates this dynamic.

“Insufficient Weight,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024.

Over the long haul, with the untenability of strong identification with a solid father, the male grows up with a “father hunger” –a longing for a father figure who can make up for all the helplessness and humiliation he experienced as a child into adulthood. The unconscious wish is to have enough power to turn against the society that shamed him by depriving him of a father who could carry sufficient weight in society that could in turn fulfill the needs of the son to have a solid sense of himself as a man. The painful experience of shame and its annihilating impact is deeply damaging to the core of the sense of self. He feels broken and unfulfilled in an environment where he cannot be seen! The typical unconscious tit-for-tat solution to this loss is to hold society responsible for depriving him of his legitimate developmental needs. The expression of rage and retribution artificially rescues their damaged sense of self from the painful ravages of shame. Hence, here lies Donald Trump’s genius in mobilizing his unyielding supporters with the slogan “I’M YOUR RETRIBUTION”!

Through his audacious rebellion against the society that has deprived this disadvantaged group, Trump has become their Messiah. He is the only one who can restore their sense of self, repair their injured ego, and provide them with a new sense of self-respect and dignity through his crusade against all the societal norms that have excluded them. To them, Trump comes across as the powerful, fearless father figure that these “little boys” long for. His crusade against every norm of the “illegitimate” society helps heal and restore their deprived dignity. The society Trump has exposed is disqualified and no longer has the power to humiliate them. Hence, the more unconventional, the ruder, and cruder Trump becomes in shunning all the rules of civility, the more powerful his healing touch.

This idealization of a strong, fearless father figure is exactly what this population longs for to feel lifted and accepted. There is also a great vicarious pleasure from Trump’s unbending will and power. The society that disempowered them is being disempowered by the valiant father figure giving them a strong illusion that through this idealization everything that escaped them in the past has become within reach. If society and its norms are debunked, as Trump time and time again openly avows, then there’s no reason to feel deprived, unanchored, or adrift.

 Trump is the warrior/savior of this group; he gives them the gift of belonging and importance. His legal convictions are meaningless and/or false because society no longer carries any moral weight to pass judgments. Trump’s heroic stand against society is both edifying and offers them a newfound sense of belonging, respect, and trust in their idealized identification.

In the circumstances outlined above the primitive defenses of denial and disavowal aided by fake news and conspiracy theories inevitably produce a certain degree of disconnect with reality. Psychology can help us understand this and why some groups unwittingly work against their self-interest by abandoning reality.

On October 7, Gallant was just as hawkish as Bibi on Gaza, and delivered himself of some genocidal remarks about cutting off food and other necessities to civilians. He may become a defendant at The Hague for his involvement in that total war. Israel’s right to defend itself, under the UN Charter, does not authorize a disproportionate response that has killed over 40,000 people in Gaza, the bulk of them civilians. But as time has passed, Gallant at least began to plan for a future for Gaza without a permanent Israeli occupation. That strategy conflicts with the goals of Bibi and his “Israeli Proud Boys” cabinet ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. They want to resettle Gaza, and develop it with Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and the author of the disastrous Abraham Accords. Gallant was Washington’s only real liaison in Bibi’s Likud Party ship of fools. By eliminating Gallant, Bibi has given the US no choice but to deal only with him.

Esther Solomon, the Editor-in Chief of the left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz [“the Land”], characterized Gallant as “the last gate-keeping adult left in a senior position in the government.” She went on to say that the sole raison d’être of Israel’s government today to uphold, safeguard, and secure the political ambitions of the prime minister.  She observes that Israel is under the control of an autocrat with overweening ambition and an annexationist ideology who promotes the idea of “complete triumph,” and points out that the comparison to Trump is obvious.

Aside from Gaza, another pressing issue roiled the relations of the prime minister with his defense minister. All Israeli citizens are required to serve in the military, except the rigidly observant ultra-Orthodox sects of the Haredim and likeminded Jews. The exemption was a necessary element when Israel was founded, to rebuild the traditions of Jewish scholarship and rabbinic training destroyed during the Holocaust. They were a protected class. But the reasons for those exemptions have long since passed, since Israel has very healthy religious institutions for training rabbis and scholars, and a shortage of young people eligible for military service.  In June, Israel’s highest court struck down the military exemption for these fundamentalists.  Gallant said, “My firm stance is that every military-age person must be enlisted. They must serve in the Israel Defense Forces and defend the State of Israel. This is no longer just a social issue. It is a paramount issue for our existence and future.”

Haaretz columnist Yossi Verter often has a good reading on the progressive pulse of Israel, and cogently summarizes the complex political dynamics. Verter said of Netanyahu’s election-day firing of Gallant that the defense minister was dismissed to appease the draft-exempt ultra-Orthodox, aiming to preserve Netanyahu’s administration. He maintained that this move directly compromised national security in a deeply unsettling manner, unlike anything Israelis had experienced before. Gallant, he wrote, was in the way because he had obstructed Netanyahu’s effort to permit ultra-Orthodox men to avoid military service. He identified Netanyahu’s primary objective as maintaining his coalition, with its messianic and ethnocentric elements, until October 2026, the latest possible date for elections. Verter insists that Netanyahu’s intention is to reach this point after orchestrating further judicial changes to ensure his path to reelection.

Bibi’s colleagues in the far right, ethnonationalist Likud party quickly closed ranks to voice their support for Trump in the election. The see him as a “true friend of Israel,” in that he won’t impede Israel’s military agenda in Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Also, the Israeli far right remains grateful for the disastrous Abraham Accords, which sidelined the Palestinians and so de facto legitimized some of their imperial holdings. Bibi’s consolidation coupled with Trump’s return to the White House makes this a very dark time for democracy and western civilization. Bibi and Trump have fueled and supported one another’s cruelties and escape from accountability, as well as one another’s campaign to remain in office to avoid criminal consequences.

“Hugs,” Digital, Dream / Cartoon v3, 2024.

The public reaction to Gallant’s firing has been a series of massive street demonstrations, not seen in Israel since before October 7. One of the protesters said, “We, the protesters, believe that Gallant … is actually the only normal person in the government,” and condemned Bibi for opening “new fronts in uncalled-for wars.” Gallant attributed his dismissal to the orthodox conscription issue, Bibi’s disinterest in a hostage deal, and his resistance to a full investigation of the October 7 military and intelligence failures. Of course, Bibi wants to obstruct any investigation because it will be a damning revelation of his personal failures as Prime Minister. Gallant had been publicly dismissive of Bibi’s rhetoric of “total victory over Hamas,” and argued that Israel’s military success thus far had already created favorable conditions for a diplomatic hostage deal.”

As with Trump in the US, Bibi has made efforts to remove government boundaries and standards to suit his autocratic agenda. This includes meddling in judicial appointments through the Judicial Appointments Committee’s so that Likud politicians will control the panel. Other aspects of this legislative overreach include: “ a political takeover of the judicial ombudsman’s office; transferring the power to open incitement investigations, sensitive because of their chilling effect on freedom of speech, to the police, thereby eliminating the prosecutorial oversight that exists today; granting the government (specifically the communications minister) the power to shut down websites; suffocating the public broadcasting corporation Kan’s (Israeli Public Broadcasting Corp.) funding; shifting responsibility for measuring television ratings to the government; changes to the election laws.” The Likud government has made it a habit to unlawfully ignore the Attorney General’s directives when it suits Bibi’s convenience and career goals.

By firing Gallant, Bibi has consolidated his hold over his coalition by removing his only real internal critic, whom he perceived as a Trojan horse. But the Biden administration saw Mr. Gallant as a trusted ally and reliable negotiating partner. Bibi urgently campaigned to restore Trump to the White House to give him a more malleable partner in his own war to remain in office. This may be Bibi’s most brazen signal yet that his personal political life is more important than the return of the hostages or Israeli security.            

Presidential Powers

Throughout American history, presidents have repeatedly sought to increase their powers, nowhere more so than in the context of war. As historian James Patterson has pointed out, “War and the threat of war were major sources of presidential power from the beginning.” Whether it was George Washington’s insistence that he was the one to formulate foreign policy when it came to diplomacy, treaties, and more; Thomas Jefferson’s assertion of complete control over whether or not to attack the Barbary Pirates; James Polk’s decision to take actions which risked war with Mexico; or Abraham Lincoln’s “sweeping assertions of authority” in the Civil War era, executive claims to authority when it comes to matters of foreign relations and warfare have been a persistent feature of American history.

The twentieth century saw a continued rise in the powers of the presidency. As historian Jeremi Suri noted in his book The Impossible Presidency, the four terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt were a transformative moment, essentially multiplying the responsibilities of the president with the ultimate goal of “mak[ing] the national executive the dominant actor in all parts of American life.” The presidents who followed Roosevelt continued to display such enhanced powers, especially when it came to foreign affairs. 

As legal scholar Matt Waxman has reminded us, FDR’s successor, Harry Truman, went to war in Korea without congressional authorization. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did consult with Congress over the need to protect U.S.-allied Pacific coastal islands from possible Chinese aggression and, in his farewell address, warned against “the military-industrial complex,” still believed “that the president had broad powers to engage in covert warfare without specific congressional approval.” In fact, his successor, John F. Kennedy, exercised those powers in a major way in the Bay of Pigs incident. Richard Nixon unilaterally and secretly launched the invasion of Cambodia in 1970, and Ronald Reagan created a secret Central American foreign policy, while arranging the unauthorized transfer of funds and weaponry to the Nicaraguan rebels, the Contras, from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran, despite the fact that such funding was prohibited by an act of Congress, the Boland Amendment.

The Twenty-First Century

Even within the context of repeated presidential acts taken without congressional assent (or often even knowledge) and in defiance of the constitutional checks on the powers of the presidency, the twenty-first century witnessed a major uptick in claims of executive power. In the name of war, this century has seen an astonishing erosion of constraints on that very power, as Yale law professor Harold Hongju Koh details in his illuminating new book, The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century.

At the dawn of this century, the attacks of September 11, 2001, led to an instant escalation of presidential power and executive unilateralism. In the name of national security, President George W. Bush issued an order that authorized the indefinite detention of prisoners in what quickly came to be known as the Global War on Terror. He also set up an offshore prison of injustice at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and authorized military commissions instead of federal court trials for terrorism suspects captured abroad.

Meanwhile, Congress and the courts consistently deferred to the will of the president when it came to actions taken in the name of that war on terror. One week after the attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which undermined its own power in Article I of the Constitution to declare war and weakened its powers of restraint on presidential actions carefully articulated in the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR), passed to guard against the very kind of secretive engagement in war that Nixon had unilaterally authorized in the Vietnam era.

Buy the Book

Now, turning their backs on the power given them by the Constitution and the WPR, Congress, with that AUMF, acceded to the expansion of presidential powers and opened the door to the disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere early in this century.  The president, it stated, was “authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.”

In October 2001, Congress also passed the USA Patriot Act. It included an expansion of presidential power at home in the name of protecting the nation in the war on terror, including authorizing greatly expanded surveillance policies that would come to include, among other things, secret surveillance and searches that took place without evidence of wrongdoing, notably in Muslim communities in this country that were considered inherently suspect in the name of the war on terror.

As a result, when, in January 2009, Barack Obama entered the White House, his administration found itself with a strikingly expanded definition of the powers of the presidency on the table.

Obama’s Presidency

A former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama pledged to overturn some of the Bush administration’s most egregious, extralegal breaches, including the very existence of the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility and the use of torture (or what the Bush administration had politely termed “enhanced interrogation techniques”) authorized by executive unilateralism as part of the war on terror. In what became known as “trust me” government, Obama also pledged to reform the excessive surveillance policies implemented in the war on terror. In 2013, David Cole, a civil rights attorney and currently the National Legal Director of the ACLU, credited Obama with making substantial “shifts” toward restraint by formally declaring an end to many of the Bush administration’s “most aggressive assertions of executive power.”

But while Obama did indeed trim some of the most striking excesses of the Bush era, his record of presidential reform fell significantly short. Jameel Jaffer, the founding director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, for instance, disputed Cole’s claims, citing the Obama administration’s continued reliance on illegal and extralegal policies that Bush’s aggressive actions had already put in play — among them, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, and the military commissions to try prisoners at Guantánamo. In addition, as Jaffer pointed out, the Obama administration frequently relied on the powers granted the presidency in that 2001 AUMF to authorize targeted lethal drone strikes globally, as in the case of the drone-killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, without further congressional authorization, by expanding the definition of “imminence” in order to appear to be complying with the international rule of law.

When it came to such targeted killings — a military tactic introduced under President Bush but greatly expanded during the Obama years for strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen — the president reserved for himself the right to have the final say in authorizing such strikes. As the New York Times reported at the time, “Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary, and the president’s own deep reserve.” 

Although he served as legal adviser to the Department of State in the Obama administration, in his warnings about the perils posed by the slide towards unilateral presidential powers, Harold Hongju Kou concedes that the president could have done more to curtail the Bush era enhancement of the powers of the president. “[T]he cautious Obama administration,” he writes, “succeeded in swinging the national security pendulum only part of the way back” to restraint on executive power via the courts and Congress. While the “cascade of illegality” that defined the Bush era’s war on terror was indeed somewhat addressed by Obama, it remained, Koh reminds us, “undercorrected” — including not seeking “stronger accountability for past acts of CIA torture, and the stubborn continuation of a Guantanamo detention policy.”

While President Obama adhered more closely to restraints on presidential power than his predecessor, his administration did not make the kinds of structural and procedural changes necessary to deter future presidents from following in the footsteps of the Bush administration, as we were soon to learn, since, as Koh points out, enhanced unilateral presidential and executive powers would be “sharply re-intensified” under Donald Trump.

The Trump Years

Indeed, the first Trump presidency vastly accelerated the claims of expanded presidential power. Jack Goldsmith and Bob Bauer, lawyers who worked in the Bush and Obama administrations, respectively, served, as they put it, “very different presidents” and hold “different political outlooks.” Yet they agree that the Trump administration took unchecked presidential authority to a new level. In their 2020 book, After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency, they contended that “Donald Trump operated the presidency in ways that reveal its vulnerability to dangerous excesses of authority and dangerous weaknesses in accountability.”

And as they make all too clear, the stakes were (and remain) high. “The often-feckless Trump,” they wrote, “also revealed deeper fissures in the structure of the presidency that, we worry, a future president might choose to exploit in a fashion similar to Trump — but much more skillfully, and to even greater effect.” And with the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the immunity of Donald Trump for acts taken while in the Oval Office, the shackles that once tied presidential acts in wartime to Congressional authorization are arguably now fully off the table, should a president be determined to act on his or her own say-so. (As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, the ruling “will have disastrous consequences for the presidency and for our democracy,” arguing that it will, in essence, “let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.”)

The Biden Years

When it comes to recognizing limits on presidential powers, President Biden has had a distinctly mixed record. He immediately withdrew Trump’s executive order known as “the Muslim ban,” set out to close Guantánamo (but has not yet succeeded in doing so), rejoined the Paris climate accord, and revived international ties around the world that had been disrupted by Trump.  And yet, that quintessential institutionalist, who prided himself on his ability to work with Congress, nonetheless veered in the direction of presidential unilateralism in the conduct of foreign affairs.

As Professor Koh put it: “In foreign affairs, even the longtime senator Joe Biden — who widely proclaims his love of the Senate — now operates almost entirely by executive fiat,” including a reliance on “classified policy memoranda, with minimal congressional oversight.”  Overall, in fact, Biden issued more executive orders than any president since Richard Nixon. Though Biden wisely relied upon an interagency group of lawyers to advise him on national security decisions, following their advice, he issued “nonbinding political agreements, memoranda of understanding, joint communiques, and occasionally ‘executive agreements plus,’” just as Obama had done on the Paris climate accords and the Iran nuclear deal, relying on “preexisting legislative frameworks” rather than new Congressional authorizations. When it came to the war in Ukraine, Biden leaned heavily on “the coordinated use of sanctions, enhanced almost weekly post-invasion.” Most of those sanctions were set, as Koh also points out, “by executive orders and regulatory decrees,” rather than in consultation with Congress.

Our Future

A second Trump presidency will undoubtedly take unilateral presidential powers to a new level. After all, he already indicated that he might withdraw the U.S. from NATO and end support for Ukraine.  Nor is Trump likely to be deterred by Congress. Reporting on Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s nearly 1,000-page prescription for a second Trump presidency, written primarily by former office holders in the first Trump administration, New York Times reporters Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage, and Maggie Haberman reported that Trump “and his associates” plan to “increase the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.”

In particular, Project 2025’s stance on nuclear weapons is a reminder of just how dangerous a president who refused to be restrained by law or precedent will be. After all, in his first term in office, Trump unilaterally pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on that country, leading its leaders to increase its nuclear capacity. Meanwhile, the march toward nuclear confrontation has accelerated worldwide. In response, Project 2025 argues for ramping up America’s nuclear arsenal yet more.  “[T]he United States manifestly needs to modernize, adapt, and expand its nuclear arsenal,” the treatise declared,  in order to “deter Russia and China simultaneously,” adding that the U.S. needs to “develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring — including new capabilities at the theater level — to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion.”

Consider all of that a frightening vision of our now all-too-imminent future: a president freed from the restraints of the constitution, unchecked by Congress or the courts — or by his cabinet advisors. In the words of MSNBC’s Ali Velshi, Project 2025 has set the stage for Donald Trump to be the very opposite of what this country’s founders intended, “a king,” surrounded  not by “groups of qualified experts” but by “unblinking yes-men.”

(Dis)Trust in the Presidency

The growing power of the presidency has been taking place in plain view, as unilateral powers have accumulated decade after decade in the Oval Office, while the recent choice of president has also become a grim choice about the nature and powers of the presidency itself. Notably, the rise in executive powers has coincided with a creeping distrust of government in this country. Since the early 1960s, when nearly 80% of Americans said they trusted government “most of the time,” the public’s faith in this country’s federal government hovers at just over 20%, according to the Pew Research Center. And no wonder. When the office of the president refuses to accept the checks and balances that underlie the democratic system, the country’s trust in negotiated, reasonable, and restrained outcomes understandably falls away.

Sadly, in this era, the benefits of restoring the very notion of checks and balances that birthed the nation have come to seem ever more like a quaint dream.

Copyright 2024 Karen J. Greenberg

via Tomdispatch.com