Saturday, February 8, 2025

Combatting Fascism in the United States in All Its Dimensions Requires A Fundamental Knowledge of and Coherent Focused Analysis On What It Is and How It Functions in A Social, Civic, and Ideological Context As Well As On a Structural, Economic, and Political Level: Various Scholars, Journalists, and Activists Weigh In On These and Other Important and Related Questions

AMERICA IS A FASCIST STATE

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism fascism is at the far right wing of the traditional left–right spectrum.


AMERICA IS A ROGUE STATE

A nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations.  

 
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/opinion/trump-musk-christian-nationalism.html


Now Will We Believe What Is Happening Right in Front of Us?



Credit: Will Matsuda for The New York Times


Listen to this article · 11:42 min Learn more

by Katherine Stewart
February 7, 2025
New York Times



They told us they would smash the institutions that safeguard our democracy. And that is exactly what they are doing.

Many Americans chose not to believe what they were saying. Will we now believe what we are seeing?

To be clear, “they” are not just Donald Trump and his billionaire co-pilot. Over the past half-century, an anti-democratic movement has coalesced in the United States. It draws on super-wealthy funders, ideologues of the new right, purveyors of disinformation and Christian nationalist activists. Though it pretends to revere the founders and the Constitution, it fundamentally rejects the idea of America as a modern pluralistic democracy.

The natural tendency in a functioning democracy is to look for ways to “work across the aisle” and “agree to disagree.” But appeasement now would be a mistake. This anti-democratic movement has no interest in compromise. Any concessions will help consolidate the powers of a lawless presidency and entrench a new, kleptocratic, authoritarian form of government in the United States.

It is also bad politics. The Trump administration has charted a course for eventual catastrophic failure. Those who attempt to work with it will go down with it. We must work instead to safeguard our democratic institutions, communicate the threat to the many sectors of the American public that have yet to understand it and prepare for a major cleanup operation in years to come.

Democracy isn’t just about the results of the most recent election. Without a system of justice that applies equally to all citizens, you’re voting for the next elected despot. That is why the leaders of the anti-democratic movement made clear well before the election — in documents such as the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which sought to provide Trump with an aggressive right-wing agenda he could just pick up and run with — that they intend to demolish the system of justice as we know it and replace it with a form of policing in service of the ruling party and its chosen leaders.

In its first two and a half weeks, the Trump administration has delivered on that promise. The stream of transparently lawless executive orders — to make it easier to fire federal officials, to freeze spending that the president cannot freeze, to take away a right to citizenship that is written into the Constitution, to name just three — tell us in no uncertain terms that this administration has no intention of respecting the law or the Constitution. (And if you are comforting yourself with the idea that the administration will respect injunctions from judges, which it has in the past, I invite you to consider Mr. Trump’s recent behavior in court.)

The decapitation at the F.B.I., the sidelining of individuals at the Department of Justice and the de facto shuttering of the foreign aid agency U.S.A.I.D. all serve the same purpose. It means that Mr. Trump and his favorites of the moment will find it much easier to operate with the kind of immunity that the Supreme Court has already granted the president.

Tellingly, the most galling indicator of the administration’s lawless intentions actually came early: the blanket pardon for the Jan. 6 rioters who stormed the Capitol, even those who attacked Capitol Police officers, which provides Mr. Trump with a powerful recruiting tool for elements that might wish to support him with political violence.

Democracy relies equally on a professional government, staffed with individuals who are subject to ethics constraints and act on the basis of reason and evidence in accordance with the law. That is why the leaders of the anti-democratic movement declared war long ago on what they jeeringly call the “administrative state.” Project 2025 promised a brutal assault on what it maintains is a “weaponized” and “woke” civil service bent on persecuting conservatives, and proposed purges.

Russell Vought, a leading figure behind Project 2025 and now Mr. Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget for the second time, promised to put government employees “in trauma.” The new-right intellectuals behind the anti-democratic movement draw heavily on crackpot writers like Curtis Yarvin, who condemns “the cathedral” — his term for the people and institutions that sustain a functioning modern state — and openly champions monarchical rule.

In its first weeks, the Trump administration has delivered on that promise. The probably illegal firing of inspectors general throughout the federal government; the tawdry “buyout” offer for federal employees; the commandeering of highly sensitive government data by Elon Musk’s DOGE minions; and the ongoing dismantling, firings and deletions of data at multiple federal agencies — these are not ways of making the government accountable to the voters in the last election, as partisans falsely suggest. They are about making sure that the people can never hold the president and his cronies to account. They also have nothing to do with “efficiency.” We are about to witness administrative dysfunction on a grand scale.

Democracy also depends on a corporate sector and a media sector that work independently of the government in power. That is why the leaders of the anti-democratic movement essentially opened a storefront in advance of the inauguration and began inviting corporations and wealthy individuals to prove their loyalty to the ruling party with inaugural fund contributions. Then came the meme coins that allow anyone to enrich the president and his wife, at least in theory, by purchasing digital tokens with no intrinsic purpose or value.

This proved to be one of the easiest parts of the process. The leaders of Meta, Amazon, JP Morgan, Google, OpenAI and a long list of other corporate titans seem to be making it clear that if protecting their profits means appeasing a corrupt autocratic regime, then that is what they will do.

Democracy relies on something softer, too, namely a sense of unity and shared purpose that allows people to work with one another despite their differences. That is why Rule No. 1 of the authoritarian playbook is to divide the populace. Mr. Trump, of course, is a renowned expert in that department. It is hard to think of another American president who would have taken advantage of an airplane tragedy to push hateful rhetoric about D.E.I. To be sure, reforming policies on diversity is not inherently unreasonable. But the administration’s total war on anti-discrimination law has nothing to do with “merit” and everything to do with stoking division.

Similarly, immigration policy is and ought to be debated. But in the past weeks, the administration has made clear that it will use its powers not to solve the many real immigration issues but instead to perform stunts intended mainly to reinforce the myths that helped get Mr. Trump elected (like the myth that immigrants commit crimes at higher rates than native-born Americans or the myth that the previous administration encouraged bands of these immigrant-criminals to roam free).

Why are they so desperate to weaken or even destroy democracy? Mainly, because they know that our system of justice, a functioning government, an independent economic sector and a united people stand in the way of unearned wealth and privilege. But it is important to understand that the anti-democratic movement is not monolithic. In fact, it isn’t even coherent.

One part of the program answers to the oligarchs — that is, the leaders of tech oligopolies and the most narrow-minded of our nation’s billionaires. These people are betting that the deconstruction of the administrative state means no pesky government oversight on their economic activities, plus tax cuts as well as privileged contracts. They may fatten their pocketbooks in the short term, but the idea that wreaking havoc on our democracy will enhance their wealth is tragically mistaken.

Another part of the program is the work of fanatics. I do not use the term loosely. If you take the trouble to read the writings of the thought leaders of the new right, who form a good portion of the brain trust of the anti-democratic movement, you will discover a group of men who really hate women, admire Nazi political theorists such as Carl Schmitt and believe in the existence of an insidious, all-controlling monster called “the woke,” which apparently works out of diversity, equity and inclusion offices in the back of “the cathedral.” They are acting out their fantasies now, taking revenge on imaginary enemies, and the American republic will be the principal victim.

The Christian nationalist ideologues who supply much of the rest of the ideology of the movement are no less extreme. Just listen to Doug Wilson, the powerful pastor from Moscow, Idaho, whom Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, has praised. Mr. Wilson is among the growing contingent who say that women should not have a right to vote. Or Lucas Miles, senior director of Turning Point USA Faith and the author of “Woke Jesus: The False Messiah Destroying Christianity,” who has called progressive Christianity “heretical.” In a promotional video at December’s AmericaFest, an annual convention sponsored by Turning Point USA, Mr. Miles said, “I want to see woke church defunded.”

The left, “recognized early on,” Mr. Miles added, “that they knew they needed a vehicle to carry this progressive ideology, this Marxist agenda, and the best vehicle is the church. … It’s been going on since the 1700s that progressive thought has been creeping in.”

Still another part of the movement, which usually gets the most attention even though it has the least power, is the mass of voters who remain faithful to Mr. Trump. They come in many different varieties. No doubt some saw a vote for him as a vote against “Biden-flation” and the sharp rise in the cost of living. Some may really believe that the 2020 election was stolen or that public schools are indoctrination camps forcing gender change on students. Some did not understand the threats to democracy, others did not take them seriously and some simply don’t value democracy.

What is to be done? Let’s start with that dread word: messaging. In the coming months and years, the anti-democratic movement will cause many people to suffer real harm. We need to make sure these people know who did this to them — and who will fight for them.

As people lose their jobs or have to pay more as a consequence of needless tariffs, as they lose out on the benefits they earned and government services they deserve, as the Trump administration prioritizes buffoonish stunts over sound policy, as our most trusted allies abandon us, as women find more of their rights at risk, as people who don’t fit the regime mold find their careers faltering, and as the oligarchs behave ever more outrageously, we need to say, over and over: They did this.

But there is much more we can do. Now is not the time to curl up in despair. We have institutions to protect, pro-democracy organizations to support, and elections in less than two years. We have lawsuits to pursue, corruption to expose. In normal times, it is the duty of democratic citizens to help a newly elected president succeed. In the present circumstances, it is our duty to protect our democratic republic from a lawless president and the profoundly anti-American movement he leads.

More on the first weeks of Trump’s second term:


Opinion | Jamelle Bouie
There Is No Going Back
Feb. 5, 2025


Opinion | Thomas B. Edsall
‘Trump’s Thomas Cromwell’ Is Waiting in the Wings
Feb. 4, 2025


Opinion | Michelle Goldberg
The Familiar Arrogance of Musk’s Young Apparatchiks
Feb. 3, 2025


Opinion | The Editorial Board
Trump’s Test of the Constitution
Feb. 1, 2025

Opinion | David French
How a German Thinker Explains MAGA Morality
Jan. 26, 2025


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Katherine Stewart (@kathsstewart) is the author of “Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy” and “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.”



https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/elon-musks-revolutionary-terror


Letter from Trump’s Washington
 
Elon Musk’s Revolutionary Terror

The evisceration of U.S.A.I.D. isn’t a policy fight—it’s an execution designed to strike fear in our own government.

by Susan B. Glasser
February 6, 2025
The New Yorker


Source photograph by Amanda Perobelli / Reuters

Nearly twenty years ago, the Washington Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote a classic account of the shambolic American takeover of the Iraqi government, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” Most memorably, he described what a Times reviewer called “the lethal combination of official arrogance and ineptitude” that plagued the foreign occupiers from Washington who, after the 2003 U.S. invasion, moved into the Green Zone—the walled-off compound that had once belonged to Saddam Hussein. Young conservatives were favored, heedless of experience. Some job seekers were asked their views of Roe v. Wade. Others were hired after sending their résumés to the right-wing Heritage Foundation back in D.C. While Baghdad spiralled into out-of-control violence, the G.O.P. ideologues who reported for duty in the desert worked to privatize Iraqi government agencies, revamp the tax code, and launch an anti-smoking campaign. A clueless twenty-four-year-old found himself in charge of opening an Iraqi stock exchange. It didn’t work out well.

I was reminded of this gloomy chapter in American history while reading accounts this week of Elon Musk and his small army of anonymous intern-hackers, who have been deployed on Donald Trump’s behalf inside an array of agencies to take control of computer payment systems and government H.R. functions. A nineteen-year-old high school graduate who now has access to sensitive government information is known online as “Big Balls.” A former intern at Musk’s SpaceX, who dropped out of the University of Nebraska, is now working out of the General Services Administration. Scenes of low comedy and spy-movie drama have been reported throughout the federal government—an unclassified e-mail listing all recent C.I.A. employees was sent to the White House to comply with a Musk decree; workers at NASA were ordered to “drop everything” in order to scrub the space program’s Web sites of offending references to banned phrases such as “diversity,” “Indigenous People,” and “women in leadership.” Musk and his command team at the Department of Government Efficiency, a made-up agency with no legal power that Trump established by executive order on his first day back in office, have been sleeping at the Office of Personnel Management.

In its short existence, Musk’s small occupying force has gained access to the entire U.S. Treasury federal payments system—to what end, no one yet knows—and has seemingly orchestrated the dismantling of U.S.A.I.D., the decades-old federal agency in charge of distributing American foreign aid around the world. Upcoming targets reportedly include everything from the Department of Education to the government weather-forecasting service and the U.S. aviation system. Federal employees were given a deadline of Thursday at midnight to accept Musk’s offer of a government-wide deferred-resignation “buyout.” A federal judge has delayed the move, which was expected to yield more than forty thousand takers—well short of the five per cent or more of the federal workforce that Musk hoped to purge, but still an enormous upheaval whose repercussions will echo for years.

In a series of posts on X, the social-media site that Musk owns, the world’s wealthiest man bragged of feeding U.S.A.I.D. to “the wood chipper,” claimed the agency was a “criminal” enterprise, and crowed about “dismantling the radical-left shadow government.” This seemed like a far cry from his initial mandate of serving as an “outside volunteer” to advise Trump on possible budget cuts. Let the record show that, at 3:59 A.M. on day sixteen of the Trump restoration, as Democrats sputtered ineffectually about an unelected billionaire’s illegal power grab, Musk openly proclaimed his project as nothing less than “the revolution of the people.”

A day later, I spoke with a Republican who worked closely with the architects of America’s botched Iraq invasion. I asked whether he had been surprised by anything so far in a Trump Administration designed to shock. Yes, he replied—Musk’s sneaky takeover of the apparatus of the vast U.S. executive branch was something entirely new in the annals of global coups. “Elon figured out that the personnel, information-technology backbone of the government was essentially the twenty-first-century equivalent of the nineteen-fifties television tower in the Third World,” he observed, and “that you could take over the government essentially with a handful of people if you could access all that.” My friend, incidentally, chose to speak on background despite his years of public criticism of Trump, noting that a think tank with which he is affiliated receives government contracts. Fear, in this revolution, as in all revolutions, is perhaps the most effective weapon of all.

Two decades ago, Bush’s Republican Party chose to topple the far-off regime of Saddam Hussein. It’s worth taking a second to reflect that, only a short political lifetime later, the government that Trump’s G.O.P. has chosen to go after is our own.

Trump and Musk have pushed out a steady stream of propaganda and lies to justify their claims for why a revolution wholly outside established laws, procedures, and norms is now necessary. According to a Thursday morning post on Trump’s own Truth Social network, U.S.A.I.D.—which, as far as I can tell, Trump never mentioned on the 2024 campaign trail—is one of several agencies where “BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE BEEN STOLLEN,” including as a “PAYOFF” to the “FAKE NEWS MEDIA” for promoting Democrats. This conspiracy, he warned, might be “THE BIGGEST SCANDAL OF THEM ALL.” In the run-up to the all-out assault on U.S.A.I.D., Trump’s White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, spread the absurd tale, via Musk’s team, of fifty million dollars that the agency supposedly earmarked for condoms to be sent to the Gaza Strip. By the time Trump later repeated the story, he had elevated the nonexistent bequest of condoms to a hundred million dollars. Think of this as the information-war equivalent of covering fire from the artillery before the ground assault begins. Days later, the U.S.A.I.D. Web site, with the report proving that there were no condoms for Gaza, had been taken offline. By midweek, that Web site was back up but stripped of all content except a curt message informing readers that “all USAID direct hire personnel” were being placed on “administrative leave globally,” effective at midnight on Friday. In the end, the Trump Administration apparently plans to keep only about two hundred of the agency’s more than ten thousand staff.

We don’t yet know to what extent this brazen ploy will succeed, of course. Congressional Democrats and others have mobilized to defend various embattled agencies; lawsuits have been filed; protests have been convened. But for now, the politics may even be working for Trump and Musk. The Democratic strategist David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff for Barack Obama, have both warned that they fear their party is falling into a trap in defending U.S.A.I.D. “My heart is with the people out on the street outside USAID, but my head tells me: ‘Man, Trump will be well satisfied to have this fight,’ ” Axelrod told Politico’s Rachael Bade. “When you talk about cuts, the first thing people say is: Cut foreign aid.”

It’s also true that, if cutting the federal government is what this is all about, then Trump and Musk would not be bothering with tiny U.S.A.I.D., whose estimated budget of some forty billion dollars is less than one per cent of the federal government’s. The point is not a policy fight; it’s an execution. They are killing one agency to terrify a thousand others. Congress should be one of the main aggrieved parties here, given that it passed the laws authorizing U.S.A.I.D. and other departments under attack and appropriating the funding for them, but this is the Republican-controlled Congress in the age of Trump. Speaker Mike Johnson, on Wednesday, dismissed the furor over Musk’s power play as “gross overreaction in the media.” Perhaps the most perfect distillation of where elected Republican officials are at right now came from the North Carolina senator Thom Tillis. Asked about what Musk is doing on Trump’s behalf, he replied, “That runs afoul of the Constitution in the strictest sense.” But, he added, “nobody should bellyache about that.”

The message here is loud and clear: the revolution will not be stopped on Capitol Hill. And indeed, on Tuesday, two of Trump’s most controversial nominees, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Tulsi Gabbard for director of National Intelligence, were voted out of Senate committees after key Republican senators abandoned their objections to them. On Thursday evening, despite an all-night Democratic filibuster against the nomination of Russell Vought to be Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Senate was expected to go ahead and confirm him. Vought is an intellectual architect of the attack on the federal government who helped write the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda for the new Administration, and he has made little secret of the pain he is hoping to inflict. “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” he said at a conference in 2023, a tape of which was later obtained by ProPublica. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work. . . . We want to put them in trauma.”

Earlier this week, I spoke with one of Vought’s millions of targets, a career prosecutor who’s spent decades in the Justice Department’s environment division. The purge of her corner of the bureaucracy hadn’t yet made headlines, but it had arrived nonetheless. “They’ve already come,” she told me. Four of the division’s eight section chiefs had been removed and reassigned to a task force on combatting so-called sanctuary cities. Multiple employees whose roles involved “diversity” had been placed on administrative leave. The division’s “law and policy” section attorneys were told their entire office would be eliminated. And all that was before the incoming Attorney General, Pam Bondi, was confirmed by the Senate. “It’s just basically like we’re in a black hole, where our leadership has been eliminated but no political leadership has come in,” she said.

If trauma is the goal, Trump and his minions have already succeeded. But my source also offered up an eloquent rebuttal to the mindless cutting, an approach that she compared to an elementary-school principal deciding that, rather than trim the budget a few per cent, she’d just go ahead and eliminate the entire third grade. Should we get rid of air-traffic controllers and FEMA and E.P.A. testing for lead in your kids’ water, too? She asked. Frankly, her defense of the federal government was better than just about anything I’ve heard from the beleaguered Democrats. The revolution, however, will get the last laugh: after more than thirty years of public service, she already planned to retire later this year. Congrats, Elon Musk. ♦




ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Susan B. Glasser, a staff writer at The New Yorker, has a weekly column on life in Washington and is a host of the Political Scene podcast. She is also a co-author of “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021.”





















































Friday, February 7, 2025

IMPORTANT NEW BOOK:

DAVID HAMMONS
October Files 29
edited by Kellie Jones
MIT Press, 2024

[Publication date:  January 28, 2025]

 

The first anthology of texts on the luminary contemporary artist David Hammons.

David Hammons is a collection of essays on one of the most important living Black artists of our time, David Hammons (b. 1943). Documenting five decades of visual practice from 1982 to the present, the book features contributions from scholars, artists, and cultural workers, and includes numerous images of the artist and his work that are not widely available. Contributions include essays from cultural critics including Guy Trebay and Greg Tate; artists Coco Fusco and Glenn Ligon; and scholars such as Robert Farris Thompson, Alex Alberro, and Manthia Diawara.

A star of the West Coast Black Arts Movement in the 1960s and the winner of a Prix de Rome prize as well as a MacArthur Fellowship, David Hammons rose to fame in Los Angeles with his body prints, in which he used his entire body as a printing plate. His later work engaged with materials that he found in urban environments—from greasy brown paper bags, discarded hair from barber shops, and empty bottles of cheap wine—which he turned into things of wonder while also commenting on a country’s neglect of its citizens. In this volume, a new generation of scholars, Tobias Wofford, Abbe Schriber, and Sampada Aranke, broaden the theoretical mapping of Hammons’s career and its impact, challenging viewers to imagine, in the words of Aranke, “how to see like Hammons.”


ABOUT THE EDITOR:


Kellie Jones is Hans Hofmann Professor of Modern Art in the Departments of Art History & Archaeology and African American & African Diaspora Studies at Columbia University. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Boston) and the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia), she was named a MacArthur Foundation Fellow in 2016.


IMPORTANT NEW BOOKS:

Black in Blues: How a Color Tells the Story of My People
by Imani Perry
‎ Ecco,   2025


[Publication date: January 28, 2025]

NAMED A MOST ANTICIPATED BOOK BY: Time, USA Today, People, AARP, Harper's Bazaar, Today.com, BookRiot, Bustle, LitHub, BookPage, The Millions, Ms., Our Culture, Electric Literature, W, and Vulture

A surprising and beautiful meditation on the color blue—and its fascinating role in Black history and culture—from National Book Award winner Imani Perry

Throughout history, the concept of Blackness has been remarkably intertwined with another color: blue. In daily life, it is evoked in countless ways. Blue skies and blue water offer hope for that which lies beyond the current conditions. But blue is also the color of deep melancholy and heartache, echoing Louis Armstrong’s question, “What did I do to be so Black and blue?” In this book, celebrated author Imani Perry uses the world’s favorite color as a springboard for a riveting emotional, cultural, and spiritual journey—an examination of race and Blackness that transcends politics or ideology.

Perry traces both blue and Blackness from their earliest roots to their many embodiments of contemporary culture, drawing deeply from her own life as well as art and history: The dyed indigo cloths of West Africa that were traded for human life in the 16th century. The mixture of awe and aversion in the old-fashioned characterization of dark-skinned people as “Blue Black.” The fundamentally American art form of blues music, sitting at the crossroads of pain and pleasure. The blue flowers Perry plants to honor a loved one gone too soon.

Poignant, spellbinding, and utterly original, Black in Blues is a brilliant new work that could only have come from the mind of one of our greatest writers and thinkers. Attuned to the harrowing and the sublime aspects of the human experience, it is every bit as vivid, rich, and striking as blue itself.



REVIEWS:

“This prismatic volume finds the National Book Award-winning Princeton professor meditating on skin color and the indigo trade, Louis Armstrong’s music and Toni Morrison’s writing, in short, lyrical chapters.” — New York Times

“An affective investigation into the many roles of blueness in Black life. . . it is full of archival gems – but it is also a lyrical [work]. . . . What unites its disparate contents is a mood, which is just as valuable as an argument. It is a contrapuntal document, musical and moving, and no less rich for its tumbling abundance.” — Washington Post

“As Imani Perry illuminates in a new book that swirls and flicks like an actual marble, [blue is] inextricable from the Black race. . . . Reading Black in Blues is like putting on a pair of those special Kodak 3-D viewfinders that make objects and issues leap suddenly into focus. . . . Its chapters are tide pools: quite short, but deep and teeming. . . . It will have you looking afresh even at your corner mailbox.” — New York Times Book Review

“One of those books that slips the boundaries . . . . ‘Ask the right questions,’ [Perry] insists, ‘and you’ll move toward virtue and truth.’ Words to live by, especially in a nation where a large swatch of the population seems intent on disavowing the better angels of our nature.”
— Los Angeles Times

“Touching on a range of historical, artistic, musical, and literary references—from the color’s significance in Yoruba cosmology to the blue candles used in hoodoo rituals to the ‘tremor’ of the “blue note’—Perry illuminates how the color has been variously associated with mourning, spiritual strength, and forces of freedom and oppression.” — New Yorker, "Briefly Noted"

“It is clear from reading Imani Perry’s Black in Blues: How a Color Tells the Story of My People why she is adept at chronicling the history of the Black diaspora: She weaves stories like a village griot or a grandparent sitting on the porch recalling the past. . . . From Africans dressed in blue as if it were ceremonial garb to a tiny house in Alabama and a cloth of remembrance for a loved one, black and blue are brilliant and so is Black in Blues.” — Christian Science Monitor

“Vast, multifaceted and enchanting. . . . Black in Blues also gave me a renewed sense of direction, a clarity of purpose. Here it is: Hold fast to beauty. It has everything you need. It has everything we need.” — Minnesota Star Tribune

“A meditative and healing introspection on Black history presented through a fresh and innovative lens. . . . Innovative, melancholic, and expansive, Black in Blues achieves its goal to bring Black history to life.” — Atlanta Journal Constitution

“Each impressionistic chapter carries us into a distinctive, colorful world, and together, the sections weave a cultural richness that no traditional history could achieve. While Perry is a renowned Harvard academic who grounds her explorations in scholarship, here, she feels more like our private guide for a vast cultural voyage, her voice beautifully echoing those of her muses Toni Morrison and Zora Neale Hurston. By composing a story that unifies many generations of Black history and is experienced through a single color, Perry herself becomes a master blues artist.” — Oprah Daily

“[Perry] exemplifies the best of interdisciplinary analysis and storytelling, weaving together the threads of history and culture to point out common threads and trends that people may never have noticed otherwise. As a historian, she writes in a conversational tone about the atrocities that are often left out of high school textbooks. As a cultural critic, she’s insightful and artfully intentional about the details she draws readers to.” — The Advocate

“National Book Award winner Perry offers surprising revelations about the connection between the color blue and Black identity as she explores myth and literature, art and music, folklore and film. . . . An innovative cultural history.” — Kirkus Reviews (starred review)

“An impressionistic cultural history of the African diaspora through its connections to the color blue, from the Congo to Haiti, Jamaica, and the American South, in music, dance, folklore, art, and literature. . . . Packed with cultural references to Nina Simone, Zora Neale Hurston, Miles Davis, and Picasso’s African-inspired Blue Period, this is a fascinating and creative work of popular anthropology . . . Original and affecting.” — Booklist (starred review)

“A lyrical meditation on ‘the mystery of blue and its alchemy in the lives of Black folk.’ . . . In direct and intimate prose, Perry synthesizes an impressive range of research into a sinewy, pulsing narrative that positions the past as an active, living force in the present. Readers will be swept up." — Publishers Weekly (starred review)

“Imani Perry's work is brilliant and lyrical as ever! How clearly she assesses the history of Black and Blue, knitting them together with language both precise and haunting. This book is a great gift, in that it allowed me to see the world anew with Perry's clear-eyed insight. How Perry allows me to understand my Blue better, too!” — Jesmyn Ward, author of Let Us Descend and Sing, Unburied, Sing

“Black in Blues is a stunningly original journey in search of the historical origins of the very soul of African American life and culture. Along the way, Perry shows, with telling detail and in engaging prose, how ‘The Blues’ became Black, and how Black people became ‘Blues People.’” — Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

“With Black in Blues,Imani Perry establishes herself as the most important interpreter of Black life in our time. With intellectual skill, an artist’s eye, and the beauty of her pen, she powerfully tells the story of our people through the color blue. This is an extraordinary book.” — Eddie S. Glaude, Jr., author of Begin Again and We Are the Leaders

“Imani Perry's Black in Blues is a masterful convergence of literature, history, and culture—where color itself becomes the field for reflection and revelation. The sheer span of Perry’s thinking, like the sweep of a great sky, stirs the most breathtaking of elusive emotions: awe.” — Evan Osnos, author of Wildland and Age of Ambition

 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:



Imani Perry is the National Book Award–winning author of South to America, as well as seven other books of nonfiction. She is the Henry A. Morss Jr. and Elisabeth W. Morss Professor of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality and of African and African American Studies at Harvard University, and is a 2023 MacArthur Fellow. Perry lives between Philadelphia and Cambridge with her two sons.


A More Perfect Party: The Night Shirley Chisholm and Diahann Carroll Reshaped Politics
by Juanita Tolliver
Legacy Lit, 2025

[Publication date:  January 14, 2025]

 

"A beautifully written political-social page turner" (Joy-Ann Reid) about the legendary party hosted by Diahann Carroll for Shirley Chisholm's 1972 presidential campaign, which changed the playing field for Black women in politics.

In 1972, New York Representative Shirley Chisholm broke the ice in American politics when she became the first Black woman to run for president of the United States. Chisholm left behind a coalition-building model personified by a once-in-an-era Hollywood party hosted by legendary actress and singer Diahann Carroll, and attended by the likes of Huey P. Newton, Barbara Lee, Berry Gordy, David Frost, Flip Wilson, Goldie Hawn and others. In A More Perfect Party, MSNBC political analyst Juanita Tolliver presents a path to people-centered politics through the lens of this soiree, with surprising parallels to our current electoral reality.

Chisholm worked the crowd of movie stars, media moguls, music executives and activists gathered at Carroll’s opulent Beverly Hills home, forging relationships with laughter as she urged guests to unify behind her campaign. With the feminist movement on the rise and eighteen- to twenty-year-olds voting for the first time in American history, the Democratic Party and the nation were on the cusp of long-overdue change.

Zooming in on one party attendee per chapter, A More Perfect Party brings this whimsical event out of the margins of history to demonstrate that there is an opportunity for all of us to fight for a better nation and return power to the people.
 
REVIEWS:

“[A More Perfect Party is an] ebullient and trenchant look at a trailblazing campaign for president. Tolliver writes that the fundraiser fueled a sense of optimism among traditionally marginalized groups. A Black woman has yet to be elected president of the United States, but that day may come, thanks in no small part to Shirley Chisholm paving the way.”
―Kirkus

"A More Perfect Party is a must-read. Tolliver’s work is not only a deep dive into a pivotal moment in history but also a call to action for readers to reflect on their own roles in shaping a better nation."―TheGrio

“Juanita Tolliver reveals what might be the most iconic fundraising party of all time. A More Perfect Party is a beautifully written political-social page turner, full of hope, glamour, the triumphs and failures of race and gender allyship, and most of all, the audacity to believe a Black woman could be the president of the United States of America. This is a perfectly timed book.” ―Joy-Ann Reid, host of MSNBC’s The ReidOut and New York Times bestselling author of Medgar and Myrlie

“Juanita Tolliver is an incisive, vibrant, and increasingly prominent voice in today’s politics, and she brings her analytical lens and appreciation for history to A More Perfect Party. Effective campaigns bring people together, and progress usually requires that we see each other as fully human and valuable; Tolliver explores those themes through the 1972 Democratic Party, and one dazzling, historic, literal party — with lessons that echo in today’s debates about liberalism, diversity and of course, winning.”―Ari Melber, host of MSNBC’s The Beat and MSNBC Chief Legal Correspondent

“A More Perfect Party is a detailed, thorough, and inspiring look into the meeting between Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and Diahann Carroll that brought together two of the most influential Black women of our time—both from very different walks of life, both looking to change the world. I remember that day like it was yesterday. Juanita Tolliver’s gifted storytelling brings this historic encounter back to life in a way that has never been done before. As we celebrate what would have been Congresswoman Chisholm’s 100th birthday, Tolliver's timely book is a reminder that because of Shirley Chisholm, I am. Tolliver’s work emphasizes Chisholm's impact, and beautifully connects it to what we're witnessing in politics today.” ―U.S. Representative Barbara Lee

“Juanita Tolliver artfully weaves together pop culture and history to shed new light on Shirley Chisholm's enduring legacy and lessons from her political career that our nation can, and must, learn. The vivid stories Tolliver presents speak to each of the necessary ingredients for building power and community, offering a roadmap through complex American history, our current reality, and the limitless future of Black women in politics.”―Anna Malaika Tubbs, New York Times bestselling author of The Three Mothers

“Juanita does something beautiful throughout these pages. She captures a story that is unique and universal at the same time—a snapshot of Black women striving to make change. A must read for those in the work of movement and coalition building.”―U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley

"A More Perfect Party is the story of the historic presidential campaign of Shirley Chisholm, which turns out to be the story of the historic presidential campaign of Kamala Harris, which turns out to be the story of Black women and their historic campaigns to make America great for the first time ever. Black women can help us, if we'd only just let them."―Elie Mystal, New York Times bestselling author of Allow Me to Retort
 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Juanita Tolliver is an MSNBC Political Analyst, an Opinion Contributor for theGrio, and a Contributor for SiriusXM Progress. Previously, she served as the Director of Campaigns at the Center for American Progress. She is a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 
Perfect Victims: And the Politics of Appeal
by Mohammed El-Kurd
Haymarket Books, 2025

[Publication date:  February 11, 2025] 
 
“Mohammed El-Kurd has written a new Discourse on Colonialism for the twenty-first century.”―Robin D. G. Kelley

Perfect Victims is an urgent affirmation of the Palestinian condition of resistance and refusal―an ode to the steadfastness of a nation.

Palestine is a microcosm of the world: on fire, stubborn, fragmented, dignified. While a settler colonial state continues to inflict devastating violence, fundamental truths are deliberately obscured―the perpetrators are coddled while the victims are blamed and placed on trial.

Why must Palestinians prove their humanity? And what are the implications of such an infuriatingly impossible task? With fearless prose and lyrical precision, Mohammed El-Kurd refuses a life spent in cross-examination. Rather than asking the oppressed to perform a perfect victimhood, El-Kurd asks friends and foes alike to look Palestinians in the eye, forgoing both deference and condemnation.

How we see Palestine reveals how we see each other; how we see everything else. Masterfully combining candid testimony, history, and reportage, Perfect Victims presents a powerfully simple demand: dignity for the Palestinian. 

REVIEWS:

“Great poets are truth-tellers, and the truth hurts. Mohammed El-Kurd’s raw eloquence and razor-sharp clarity will make you hurt and curse and cry and sometimes chuckle. A few will think, only to realize he is also talking about 'us,' the allies, the empathizers, even the comrades whose solidarity unwittingly demands the perfect victim. We are not completely free of Zionist lies; we are not decolonized. Mohammed El-Kurd has written a new Discourse on Colonialism for the twenty-first century. And like Aimé Césaire, he demands that we confront the truth, wipe away our crocodile tears, and take down Goliath once and for all.”
―Robin D. G. Kelley, author of Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination

“Here's a river of fire. Dive in, if you dare. It will clear the fog.”
―Arundhati Roy, author of The God of Small Things

“In Perfect Victims, Mohammed El-Kurd recenters the Palestinian gaze as compass and metric unit.”
―Noura Erakat, author of Justice for Some

“Mohammed El-Kurd’s voice is unequivocal in a hallucinatory media sphere that portrays the colonized and the occupied as either passive victims of an unnamable crime or the very perpetrators of unspeakable crimes they themselves experience. Perfect Victims is essay and memoir at its best. It portrays children forged by occupation and war and a humble people conditioned by the necessity of resistance for survival in the face of a twenty-first century genocide. Humility, irony, and irreverence are the languages of self-defense, and words are El-Kurd’s weapons.”
―Nick Estes, author of Our History Is the Future


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Mohammed El-Kurd is a writer, poet, journalist, and organizer from Jerusalem, occupied Palestine. He is the Nation’s first-ever Palestine Correspondent and editor-at-large at Mondoweiss, the recipient of numerous honors and awards, and the author of the highly-acclaimed poetry collection Rifqa, which has been translated into several languages.





Thursday, February 6, 2025

FASCIST AMERICA AS PUBLIC POLICY, SOCIAL VISION, AND IDEOLOGICAL FORCE: The Hegemonic Rule of Oligarchy, White Supremacy, Corporate Exploitation, Xenophobia, and the Patriarchy In American Society Today

AMERICA IS A FASCIST STATE

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism, and Marxism fascism is at the far right wing of the traditional left–right spectrum.


AMERICA IS A ROGUE STATE

A nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations.  



https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/trump-musk-federal-government.html
 
 
There Is No Going Back
by Jamelle Bouie
February 5, 2025
New York Times
Elon Musk raises his fists and smiles in front of a starry blue-and-white background.
Elon Musk.  Credit:  Illustration by The New York Times. Photograph by Mike Segar/Reuters.

Listen to this article · 9:47 min Learn more



Jamelle Bouie

Even if anyone had elected Elon Musk to anything, the past week would still be one of the most serious examples of executive branch malfeasance in American history.

Musk has seized hold of critical levers of power and authority within the federal government, apparently enabling him to destroy federal agencies at will, barring congressional action or judicial pushback.

Musk’s team, which includes a small gaggle of young aides, reportedly ages 19 to 24 — have taken control of the Office of Personnel Management and the General Services Administration. They also have access to the Treasury Department’s payment system, which provides a direct line to sensitive information about tens of millions of Americans, including Social Security numbers and bank accounts. By his own account, Musk could use his access to the payments system — which disburses congressional appropriations to the many payees of the government — to effect a kind of personal line-item veto. If he does not believe that a program or grant is effective — if he thinks that it constitutes “waste, fraud and abuse” — then he will cancel its funding and leave it to starve on the vine.

The first casualty that we know of is the United States Agency for International Development, or U.S.A.I.D. Musk seems to hold a vendetta against the agency. He has called it a “radical-left political psy op,” a “criminal organization” and a “a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists who hate America.” On Monday, shortly before 2 a.m., he bragged that he and his allies had spent the weekend “feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” In addition to wreaking vengeance on an agency he hates for still undisclosed reasons (although it may be worth noting that U.S.A.I.D. supported the efforts of Black South Africans during and after apartheid), Musk believes that cutting government spending is the only way to reduce inflation and put the U.S. economy on firm footing.


“When you see prices go up at the grocery store, the prices are going up because of excess government spending,” he said in an online conversation with, among others, Vivek Ramaswamy and Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. “It’s very important to connect these dots. The supermarkets are not taking advantage of you. It’s not price gouging; it’s that the government spent too much.” (This, it must be said, makes no sense.)

Again, if Musk had been elected to some office, this would still be one of the worst abuses of executive power in American history. No one in the executive branch has the legal authority to unilaterally cancel congressional appropriations. No one has the legal authority to turn the Treasury payments system into a means of political retribution. No one has the authority to summarily dismiss civil servants without cause. No one has the authority to take down and scrub government websites of public data, itself paid for by American taxpayers. And no private citizen has the authority to access the sensitive data of American citizens for either information gathering or their own, unknown purposes.

The thing, of course, is that Musk isn’t elected. He is a private citizen. He was neither confirmed for a cabinet job nor formally appointed to a high-level position within the administration. He does not even have a presidential commission; he has been designated a “special government employee.” Musk says that he is acting on the authority of the president of the United States. Even still, it is not as if the president of the United States has the authority to unleash an unvetted, unaccountable private citizen onto some of the most sensitive data possessed by the federal government.

But that is the situation. A power-mad president possessed of radical theories of executive authority and convinced of his own royal prerogative has given de facto control of most of the federal government to one of the richest men on the planet, if not the richest, whose own interests are tangled up in those of rival governments and foreign autocracies as well as the United States. The public has no guarantee that its most sensitive data is secure. At best, they have the personal word of Donald Trump, which, paired with a few dollars, might buy you a cup of coffee.

The only institution capable of responding to this with any alacrity is Congress. But Congress is also led by Republicans, and both the Senate majority leader, John Thune, and the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, have declined to take any steps to arrest the president’s illegal arrogation of power or Musk’s destructive effort to run the federal government. Thune and Johnson, acting with the support of Republicans in both chambers, have, in effect, renounced their power over the purse and abnegated their powers of oversight. Their Congress is supine, submissive and subordinate, less the equal of the president than a tool of the executive branch — a subject of his will.

Somewhere, King Charles I is jealous.

To describe the current situation in the executive branch as merely a constitutional crisis is to understate the significance of what we’re experiencing. “Constitutional crisis” does not even begin to capture the radicalism of what is unfolding in the federal bureaucracy and of what Congress’s decision not to act may liquidate in terms of constitutional meaning.

Together, Trump and Musk are trying to rewrite the rules of the American system. They are trying to instantiate an anti-constitutional theory of executive power that would make the president supreme over all other branches of government. They are doing so in service of a plutocratic agenda of austerity and the upward redistribution of wealth. And the longer Congress stands by, the more this is fixed in place.

If Trump, Musk and their allies — like Russell Vought, the president’s pick to lead the Office of Management and Budget and a vocal advocate of an autocratic “radical constitutionalism” that treats the president as an elected despot — succeed, then the question of American politics won’t be if they’ll win the next election, but whether the Constitution as we know it is still in effect.

The extent to which the United States is embroiled in a major political crisis would be obvious and apparent if these events were unfolding in another country. Unfortunately, the sheer depth of American exceptionalism is such that this country’s political, media and economic elites have a difficult time believing that anything can fundamentally change for the worse. But that, in fact, is what’s happening right now.

Now the judicial system will weigh in on the situation. As lawsuits are filed, it will try to adjudicate claims of lawful authority and executive power. And thanks to the efforts of Democratic state attorneys general, there has already been an injunction against the president’s effort to freeze federal funding. But the courts are slow-moving and reactive, and as we wait for the federal judiciary to make its moves, Trump and Musk are creating facts on the ground.

At this point in any argument like this one, the question arises of what should be done and, more critically, what can be done? The sad answer is not that much. Those with the direct institutional power to slam the brakes lack the will and those with the will lack the power.

If Trump and Musk’s opponents have a tool to use, it is the power to shape public opinion — to show as many of the American people who will listen that something truly malign and radical has hijacked the normal functioning of the federal government. And it is to the advantage of those opponents that Trump and Musk’s efforts to commandeer the executive branch are taking shape side by side with serious accidents — like the deadly airplane crash near Ronald Reagan National Airport last week — that dramatize the importance of a competent, apolitical civil service.

For as much as some of Trump’s and Musk’s moves were anticipated in Project 2025, the fact of the matter is that marginal Trump voters — the voters who gave him his victory — did not vote for any of this. They voted specifically to lower the cost of living. They did not vote, in Musk’s words, for economic “hardship.” Nor did they vote to make Musk the co-president of the United States or to give Trump the power to destroy the capacity of the federal government to do anything that benefits the American people. They certainly did not vote for a world where the president’s billionaire ally has access to your Social Security number.

Trump may have lied about the influence of the far right on his plans, but it is clear that his voters did not anticipate anything other than a return to the status quo before the pandemic. What they’re getting instead is a new crisis pushed on by a dangerous set of corrupt oligarchs and monomaniacal ideologues. As dangerous as the president and his allies are, however, their hold on government is not as total or complete as they imagine. The president’s opponents, in other words, still have room to maneuver.

But as those opponents strategize their response, it is vital that they see the important truth that there is no going back to the old status quo. President Trump and Elon Musk really have altered the structure of things. They’ve taken steps that cannot be so easily reversed. If American constitutional democracy is a game, then they’ve flipped the board with the aim of using the same pieces to play a new one with their own boutique rules.


And so the president’s opponents, whoever they are, cannot expect a return to the Constitution as it was. Whatever comes next, should the country weather this attempted hijacking, will need to be a fundamental rethinking of what this system is and what we want out of it.

Anything less will set us up for yet another Trump and yet another Musk.


More on Trump’s first weeks:


Opinion | Tyler McBrien
What Is ‘State Capture’? A Warning for Americans.
Feb. 5, 2025




Opinion | Thomas B. Edsall
‘Trump’s Thomas Cromwell’ Is Waiting in the Wings
Feb. 4, 2025



Opinion | Michelle Goldberg
The Familiar Arrogance of Musk’s Young Apparatchiks
Feb. 3, 2025



Opinion | Ezra Klein
Don’t Believe Him
Feb. 2, 2025



Opinion | Donald P. Moynihan
Trump Has a Master Plan for Destroying the ‘Deep State’
Nov. 27, 2023




ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. @jbouie
 

Some Current Facts On The Ground (Or Truth Never Lies):

AMERICA IS AN INSANE ASYLUM AND WE ARE ALL ITS INMATES.

THE SCUMBAG-IN-CHIEF AND ITS MASSIVE NATIONAL CULT IS THE JAILER AND WE ARE ALL ITS HOSTAGES AND VICTIMS

(COMPLICIT AND OTHERWISE)...

MEANWHILE WE ARE BEING RULED BY A RAPIDLY COLLAPSING AND DRACONIAN GOVERNMENT WE STILL PERSIST IN ERRONEOUSLY AND SUPINELY CALLING 'OUR DEMOCRACY'


The Trump Administration’s First 100 Days


  • Tariffs: President Trump’s demands on the United States’ neighbors are difficult to measure. That allows him to declare victory when he sees fit.

  • U.S.A.I.D.: Nearly the entire global work force of the main American aid agency will be put on leave, according to an official memo the agency posted online.

  • DOGE: Unions representing federal workers sued the Treasury Department and its head, Scott Bessent, in an effort to block Musk and his team from accessing the federal payment system.

  • Immigration: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth vowed during a visit to the southwestern border to use thousands of U.S. active-duty troops to help stem migrant crossings.

  • Government Web Pages: More than 8,000 web pages across more than a dozen U.S. government websites have been taken down, as federal agencies rush to heed Trump’s orders targeting diversity initiatives and “gender ideology.”

    Nikole Hannah-Jones: Trump came right ‘out of the gate’ with a racial agenda—not an economic one

     
    In the decades following Reconstruction, the country experienced The Great Nadir-- a period of racial retrenchment and violent enforcement of white power. America is at an inflection point, warns Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, and faces the risk of slipping into a second Nadir in race relations more than 140 years after the first, which lasted nearly four decades. "We can decide in this moment as Americans: are we going to enter another nadir, or are we going to push back against that and continue to pursue an egalitarian society?
     
     

    "What's Past is Prologue..."

    This, Our Second Nadir

    We need a restoration of historical thinking.

    by N. D. B. Connolly
    February 21, 2018
    Boston Review

    It has been worse. Let’s not forget “The Nadir,” as the historian Rayford Logan coined it: the period following Reconstruction in which America witnessed the resurgence and bloody normalization of White Power politics. Between the 1870s and the turn of the twentieth century, southern whites took over the political and propaganda apparatus in all eleven states of the former Confederacy. They rewrote state constitutions with the explicit aim of disfranchising black voters. Racial terrorism, once held underground by the presence of federal troops, morphed into pogroms and spectacle lynchings carried out in broad daylight. Under piercing cries that “The South Will Rise Again,” whites, sometimes by the hundreds and even thousands, attacked African Americans and their property. By some estimates, whites killed as many as half a million black people in politically motivated murders. These efforts were so terrifyingly effective that, over just one decade in Louisiana, white officials and vigilantes slashed the number of black registered voters from 130,000 to some 1,300—a decrease of 99 percent.
     
    Today’s calls to step away from ‘identity politics’ represent implicit calls to step away from civil rights.

    The Nadir coincided with the Gilded Age, and not by coincidence—a point Walter Johnson makes very clearly in his analysis of racial capitalism. As once-conquered Confederates snatched black people’s legal protections, the courts and Congress elevated corporations to their current status as rights-bearing citizens. In their efforts to secure even modest concessions from capital, white workers abandoned and turned on black comrades, splintering interracial labor movements. “There began to rise in America in 1876,” W. E. B. Du Bois remarked ruefully in Black Reconstruction (1935), “a new capitalism and a new enslavement of labor,” one that bridled “white, yellow, brown and black labor.” Then, as now, capitalism’s malcontents, with their many colors, suffered a shared predicament. Fractured, “a living working class” transferred its “political power from the hands of labor to the hands of capital, where,” Du Bois explained, “it has been concentrated ever since.” In light of the ensuing imperialism, death, and evaporating livelihoods, the professor maintained, “God wept.”

    With the presidency of Donald Trump we can expect a Second Nadir. As was true during the first, white capital firmly holds the levers of both politics and propaganda. And if we expect to have any chance at all to prevent the losses of life and rights that white supremacy inevitably exacts, we are going to have to marshal a little Jim Crow wisdom—knowledge carried through and beyond the Nadir—about how racism got us into this mess.

    The first lesson: we should expect steps back before we move forward. Liberal politicians will compromise with white supremacist, nativist, and chauvinist elements, this time in the Republican Party, further building inequality into the political system. The precedent is clear. In the forty years that followed mass black disfranchisement in the South, the best African Americans could hope for was the federalization of Jim Crow segregation. President Woodrow Wilson, a supposed reformer, expelled and demoted African Americans across the federal bureaucracy. From their safe congressional seats and with the power of the filibuster, southern congressmen and senators ensured that labor, housing, education, and hate crime legislation all favored southern designs, which included increased federal investment in sectors already controlled by capital—say, cotton cultivation—and minimal tampering with race regulations codifying Jim Crow.

    The subsequent New Deal salvaged the American economy, in part by creating for mostly white employers, landlords, bankers, and developers a series of very profitable racial niche markets. Blocked from joining unions, blacks and agricultural workers, for instance, sold their labor for next to nothing, further protecting white wealth. Tenants in both rural and urban enclaves around the country—white and black—suffered gouging so dramatic that landlords could easily fetch annual returns of 25–60 percent on their rental investments. (Typical returns in white markets today stand at 4–6 percent.) These policies and others also set in motion another several decades of structured racial inequality as confined African American communities became sites of pointed, predatory taxation by white-controlled local governments and predatory pricing for durable goods, services, and housing.

    Second lesson: in light of racist structures, we should not expect solidarity as the default response from subaltern people. In order to break out of Jim Crow regulations, many Americans elected to distance themselves from African Americans neighborhoods—sometimes violently—or simply denied, in spite of their African descent, being black altogether. In the century following the Nadir, people of all colors hungrily sought out political whiteness, either by passing for white or by pursuing legal or diplomatic exemptions from being “colored.”

    We should understand, though, that passing in the twenty-first century will not be of the kind depicted in black-and-white movies, for after the Second Reconstruction the meaning of whiteness changed. Everyone who could was suddenly in a hurry to disown it. Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the moral challenges of the broader black, brown, and red freedom struggles, scores of Americans bolted from whiteness looking to identify with any variation of “— American.” Work by Matthew Frye Jacobsen, Nancy MacLean, Jared Sexton, and others explores how the hyphenated identities we now take as a given—and their “mixed race,” “neither-black-nor-white” variants—emerged in the wake of Title vii of the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action, new employment, and educational benefits were extended to those who could claim practically any association at all with the history of racial or ethnic discrimination in America. New forms of institutional multiculturalism in the 1960s and early 1970s distributed widely the government’s obligation to redress historical wrongs. In place of so-called “Negro” benefits that could break down the vestiges of Jim Crow, practically everyone, in the eyes of the state, got to be some kind of minority.
     
    Race on the back burner; economy, small government, and values on the front. The old, southern liberalism nationalized.

    This brings me to the third lesson: multiculturalism will not save us. Multiculturalism, as an alternative to mandated desegregation, is actually a southern—or, rather, segregationist—value, steeped in the elective traditions of southern liberalism. These include, in the Jeffersonian tradition, strict racial regulation and laissez-faire economics (the latter for whites only). Rather than mandated fair employment measures, decried by Jim Crow politicians as “autocratic” and “tyrannical,” the country got affirmative action, a program that allows employers to cultivate their own multiculturalism relative to their own perceived market demands. Opposing the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, Zora Neale Hurston argued against mandated integration with calls, instead, for “growth from within” and “ethical and cultural desegregation.” This was a vision of culture over policy. Blacks and whites, her argument went, could come to understand each other on their own terms, not on terms set in some far-off bureaucracy in Washington.

    As the 1960s became the 1970s—in battles over everything from school busing to anti-poverty measures—volunteerism and conflations of inequality with culture began to replace mandated desegregation efforts and an institutional acknowledgement of history. Indeed, white supremacy stays alive in American institutions through the pointed erasure of historical thinking, which is necessarily race thinking. The Supreme Court removed historical consciousness from college admissions policy in 1978 with its decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke; admissions committees could no longer consider past, group-based discrimination when determining individuals’ present-day access to college. As Thurgood Marshall explained in his dissent, “It is more than a little ironic that, after several hundred years of class-based discrimination against Negroes, the Court is unwilling to hold that a class-based remedy for that discrimination is permissible.” In its willful ahistoricism, the Court’s rulings in Bakke and subsequent cases, including Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), have effectively affirmed a “diversity regime” that knows how to celebrate difference without exploring how that difference got produced, imposed, and preserved. The Court likewise removed historical consciousness from its federal voting rights protection in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder, which ensured that states with a past record of racial discrimination no longer needed the presence of federal registrars at the polls. Representing what one observer viewed as the end of the Second Reconstruction, the Shelby decision opened the door for voter suppression in North Carolina and Florida in the 2016 election.

    Contextualizing multiculturalism as one among many rejections of subaltern history thus reveals it to be, in large measure, just one more example of institutions behaving in observance of structural white preferences. The question is not whether to focus on culture, but rather which course of action advances institutional anti-racism as a collective aim.

    Today calls to step away from “identity politics” represent implicit calls to step away from civil rights, as Marcus H. Johnson has powerfully argued. Such a move, again, merely represents an extension of older—indeed some of the oldest—segregationist politics. People often forget that Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), perhaps the most critical case in setting the terms for Jim Crow, professed to be a colorblind ruling. According to Justice Henry Billings Brown, segregation was not tantamount to discrimination. “We think the enforced segregation of the races,” the Court said in a twisted logical turn, “neither abridges the privileges or immunities of the colored man, deprives him of his property without due process of the law, nor denies him the equal protection of the laws.” No special treatment for black people, in other words, even as they suffered special indignities. Jim Crow’s foundational ruling effectively stood on an “All Lives Matter” argument.

    Now we are being asked to forget about race altogether. Even before Election Day wrapped up one of the most racist political campaigns in recent memory, white observers on the left, center, and right began telling us that what we had just witnessed was not about race. We were supposed to understand the hurting Heartland. Media outlets, reporters, and pundits, nursing their collective shock and groping for credibility, rolled out primitive “class vs. race” formulations. They warned the far left to “be careful with the ‘white supremacy’ label” and suggested that those who pursued “wrong-headed” “identity politics” owed middle America an apology. 
     
    It is uncertain when we will see our Third Reconstruction. I remain confident, though, that we will.

    But let’s remember why Trump was able to surprise so many. One reason Trump seemed like such a long shot to liberals is that he failed to adhere to the general principles of the New Economy’s dog-whistle race politics. The Second Reconstruction brought with it fundamental revisions in how America’s political mainstream had to handle the race question. President Richard Nixon, mirroring approaches successfully deployed by Democratic mayors in Chicago and elsewhere, was forced to animate his party’s white base not with overt calls to white racists, or even a successful Southern Strategy, but with calls for “law and order,” full-throated defenses of “property rights,” and condemnations of the “welfare ethic.” These terms served as handy ways to target black populations, sometimes violently. Economic and federalist arguments could also be used to great effect. As the Republican strategist Lee Atwater explained in 1981, unaware he was being recorded:

    You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. . . . “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” . . . Anyway you look at it, race is going to be on the back burner.

    Race on the back burner; economy, small government, and values on the front. The old, southern liberalism nationalized.

    For about thirty years, tepid multiculturalism and other “colorblind” deployments of race and difference became the North Star for mainstream American politics. The charted course included civil rights organizations teaming up with corporations in the early 1980s to defend affirmative action against Ronald Reagan. Through the 1990s Bill Clinton’s folksy, symbolic blackness (and the lingering white populism in the gop) helped cement the Democratic Party’s hold on the black vote, especially as it made “colorblind” policy overtures to white voters. In response to the New Democrats, George W. Bush deployed an army of high-level black and brown surrogates and appointees to evidence the gop’s new “compassionate conservatism.” And, of course, Barack Obama’s actual blackness allowed him to openly scold his black base, to deport more than two million immigrants, all with little to no political cost. Following the Second Reconstruction, it seems, racial tolerance in general, and blackness in particular, became not just helpful but necessary for political success in America.

    Then came Trump. Here was a man of questionable values, questionable conservative bona fides, and, based on his own checkered record in business, questionable understanding even of economics. Worse, it seemed, he again and again broke the discursive norms that had been greasing the wheels of American capitalism since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Because Indiana-born judge Gonzalo Curiel was “a Mexican,” Trump deemed him unqualified to adjudicate the Trump University fraud case. Because the NBC debate moderator Lester Holt was black, Trump decided he was a Democrat and thus part of the “phony system” propping up Hillary Clinton. (Holt is, in fact, a Republican.) Trump refused to be bound by the old Atwater playbook, and he won.

    So, let’s just tell the story right. Throughout the campaign Trump’s base stood wealthier, not poorer, than the average voter who supported the Democrats. Exit polls showed that Clinton won more than half the votes of people who earn less than $50,000 a year. One-time Obama counties may have gone for Trump, but the mythical white millions who voted for Obama twice and then stomached a vote for Trump do not exist. The problem is rather that the two-time Obama voter—rather than vote for Clinton and, dare one say, pissed at the president himself—elected to stay home, especially if that voter was not college educated.

    Which brings me to the final lesson: we need to practice our political consciousness. Class struggle requires a culture that nourishes class consciousness. Without cultural affirmations of feminism, attacks on women will not shock the conscience. The president-elect safely mocked the disabled, African Americans, and Latinos, performing his best in those areas where Americans enjoyed none of the intellectual and cultural infrastructure required to reject his brand of politics. On race specifically, our institutional priorities continue to undermine the formation of a racially literate public. You cannot topple racial injustice, sexism, or class exploitation without race, gender, or class thinking—early, often, and in public. And that requires, in place of mere “diversity,” a restoration of historical thinking.

    It also requires new protections of the electoral process. The American political system remains beholden to campaign contributions, corporate lobbying, and the slave masters’ founding document, the Constitution. Every now and again we bend the system, in spite of its reluctance, into some temporarily progressive shape through legal challenges, grassroots community efforts, direct action, armed self-defense, and surreptitious subversions of everyday inhumanities. But remember: even as we try our damnedest (and we must), this will still take a while. It took nearly a century of work to achieve even the basic federal protections promised before the Nadir. Not until the March on Washington in 1963 would the country see another forceful show of solidarity between black civil rights groups and white organized labor. And not until the 1970s would African Americans reach the same number of elected or appointed officials nationwide that they once enjoyed in the South during Reconstruction.

    It is uncertain when we will see our Third Reconstruction. I remain confident, though, that we will. We have been here before.

    This forum is featured in Race Capitalism Justice, now available in reprint. Order your copy today.


    ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

    N. D. B. Connolly

    N. D. B. Connolly is the Herbert Baxter Adams Associate Professor of History at Johns Hopkins University.

    Trump, 'hatchet man' Musk blasted for overreach: Trump’s First 100 Days - Day 17 | MSNBC Highlights

    February 6, 2025 
     
     
    President Trump and Elon Musk continue their efforts to scale back the government with buyout offers for federal employees, causing fear and confusion ahead of the Feb. 6 deadline. MSNBC’s Michael Steele and NBC News National Security and Global Affairs Reporter Dan De Luce react to a “potential counter-intelligence disaster” following reports that the CIA sent the names of recently hired employees to the White House in an unclassified email. Plus, a second federal judge blocked President Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship.
     
    VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb1AZeaeQ18
     

    Trump’s war on DEI a cover for oligarchs planning to ‘loot the federal government,’ critics say

    Donald Trump’s apparent war on DEI, undocumented immigrants, and others is a distraction from reported oligarchs and other alleged cronies planning to “loot the federal government,” Joy Reid opines on The ReidOut with Joy Reid.     
     
    VIDEO: 
     

     

    Federal agencies bar Black History Month and other 'special observances'

    A number of federal agencies have banned celebrations related to MLK Jr. Day, Women's History Month and other such observances to comply with Trump's executive orders.

    WASHINGTON — Federal agencies on Friday rushed to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at curtailing diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

    The executive orders prompted a flurry of memos and emails obtained by NBC News that modified the rules for staff at intelligence agencies, in the military and across civilian departments regarding employee resource groups and the celebration of cultural awareness events.

    This week, the Defense Intelligence Agency ordered a pause of all activities and events related to Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Black History Month, Juneteenth, LGBTQ Pride Month, Holocaust Remembrance Day and other "special observances" to comply with President Donald Trump's executive order, according to a memo obtained by NBC News.

    The memo listed 11 observances that are now banned. It also said that all affinity groups and "employee networking groups" are immediately on pause.

    The directive comes as the Trump administration has made it a top priority to go after any programs perceived to be related to promoting diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal government.

    When asked about the rationale for the DIA memo, a spokesperson said that agency "is working with the Department of Defense to fully implement all Executive Orders and Administration guidance in a timely manner.”

    We’re looking to hear from federal government workers. If your agency has received a memo like this, please email us at tips@nbcuni.com or contact us through one of these methods.

    Other U.S. intelligence agencies are also working to eliminate or suspend any activities that could be interpreted as supporting past DEI policies, multiple current and former officials said. The agencies are still trying to determine what activities or events will be prohibited, but officials are erring on the side of caution rather than risk failing to comply with the administration’s orders, the sources said.

    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the country’s intelligence services, recently issued written guidance to employees saying that DEI-related boards and working groups have been “curtailed” and that no official work time or work spaces should be used for DEI-related activities, according an excerpt from a memo obtained by NBC News. Future travel related to these activities also has been cancelled, the memo stated.

    Pentagon leaders on Friday received a similar email mandating that, effective immediately, they may no longer dedicate official resources, including man-hours, to cultural awareness months.

    Service members and civilians will still be permitted to attend these events in an unofficial capacity and outside of duty hours, the memo added.

    As for the Central Intelligence Agency, a spokesperson said the agency is carrying out the executive order on scrapping DEI programs.

    “CIA is complying with the Executive Order. We are laser-focused on our foreign intelligence mission,” a spokesperson said in an email.

    Former intelligence officials said there was a risk that the administration’s moves to eliminate events marking Martin Luther King Day, the Holocaust or Americans’ ethnic heritage could prove counterproductive and discourage potential recruits from joining the intelligence services.

    The CIA and other spy agencies for decades have sought to hire from a more diverse pool of talent to ensure the country has intelligence officers with language skills and cultural backgrounds that help improve intelligence gathering abroad.

    “From an intelligence community perspective, I really think it could hurt our ability to do our job,” the former senior official said.

    “We’re going to strangle off talent pipelines that were already narrow to begin with. And that’s going to deprive our intelligence community and our national security establishment of critical knowledge, talent, skills, language … that might be valuable in trying to get somebody into a foreign country,” the former official added.

    On Friday afternoon, the Office of Personnel Management sent around a memo, obtained by NBC News, ordering that all references to "gender ideology" be removed by 5 p.m. across the federal government.

    The memo stated that this includes removing references from all public-facing websites and social media accounts, and specifically ordered the removal of Outlook prompts that directed staff to write out their pronouns.

    In line with that new memo, State Department employees have also been instructed to remove all gender-identifying pronouns from their email signatures by 5 p.m. Friday.

    “The Department of State is reviewing all agency programs, contracts, and grants that promote or inculcate gender ideology, and we are removing outward facing media that does the same,” the new Under Secretary for Management Ambassador Tibor P. Nagy wrote in an email — whose subject line was "Defending Women" — reviewed by NBC News. “Bureaus have already been alerted to review trainings, forms, and plans that involve gender ideology.”

    Last week, the Justice Department sent a memo to staff announcing the closure of all of its DEI programs, saying, "These programs divided Americans by race, wasted taxpayer dollars, and resulted in shameful discrimination."

    The Pentagon memo on Friday barring the use of official resources for cultural awareness months echoed the same language, stating that "efforts to divide the force — to put one group ahead of another — erode camaraderie and threaten mission execution.”

    On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order that outlined "the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and 'diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility' (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government."

    A similar email went out from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services last week, notifying employees that all affinity groups, also known as employee resource groups, were "being disbanded and special observances are being canceled.”

    Employee resource groups (ERGs), which exist in both the public and private sectors, are voluntary, employee-led groups for people with similar backgrounds or life experiences. Common groups include ones for Native Americans, LGBTQ people, Black employees, women and veterans, among others.

    Other agencies have also ended their ERGs, including DOJ Pride, the Justice Department's LGBTQ employee resource group that has been around for 30 years.

    During a press briefing Friday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to a question from NBC News about whether Trump plans to keep with tradition and sign a proclamation about Black History Month ahead of its start on Saturday.

    "The president looks forward to signing a proclamation celebrating Black History Month. I actually spoke with our great staff secretary. It’s in the works of being approved, and it’s going to be ready for the president’s signature to signify the beginning of that tomorrow," Leavitt said.

    Trump later signed the proclamation.

    “I call upon public officials, educators, librarians, and all the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities,” he wrote, calling it “an occasion to celebrate the contributions of so many black American patriots who have indelibly shaped our Nation’s history.”

    Juneteenth was established as a federal holiday just four years ago, during the Biden administration. Also known as Emancipation Day, Black Independence Day and Jubilee Day, the holiday commemorates the end of slavery in the U.S.

    It was the first federal holiday created since 1983, when Martin Luther King Jr. Day was established.

    Andrea M. O’Neal, a former White House official who helped drive federal policies and observances behind Black History Month under President Joe Biden, said observances allow for full acknowledgement of American history.

    O’Neal also said they help raise awareness about what communities are experiencing that may have a direct impact on how the federal government can help better serve them.

    “This kind of rollback is demoralizing to communities who finally had a seat at the table [and] were finally acknowledged for their contributions,” O’Neal said.

    “When presidents and governments decide who’s important [and] who’s not, that has downstream effects that we may not fully understand yet,” O’Neal said, adding that the changes implemented from the executive order will make people feel less comfortable at work and cause them to have lower morale, she added.

    Troy Blackwell, who worked for the Department of Commerce in the Biden administration, said a big piece of DEI involves making policies and resources accessible for underserved communities.

    In his final year working for the Department of Commerce, Blackwell and his team opened patent and trademark resource libraries at Hispanic-serving institutions and historically Black colleges and universities.

    “I’m heartbroken to be honest,” Blackwell said. “It’s despicable what’s happening and I think it’s definitely a sign of government overreach.”

    “We celebrate Black History Month knowing that there’s been a history of enslavement and Jim Crow and civil rights and what that has done to the fabric of the United States and the contributions of African Americans who have been overlooked for not decades, but centuries,” added Blackwell, who is Afro-Latino. “The literal White House that the president sits in and his team works in was built by slaves.”

    Trump's inauguration happened to fall on MLK Day this year.

    In a speech following his swearing-in ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda, Trump acknowledged the historical significance of the holiday and spoke directly to the Black and Hispanic voters who cast a ballot for him last year.

    "To the Black and Hispanic communities, I want to thank you for the tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote," he said, adding: "Today is Martin Luther King Day. And his honor — this will be a great honor. But in his honor, we will strive together to make his dream a reality. We will make his dream come true."

     

    ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

     
    Politics 

    A Line-by-Line Breakdown of Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

    Almost every sentence of the order is wrong, misleading, or flagrantly unconstitutional.

    by Elie Mystal 
    January 22, 2025
    The Nation
    Donald Trump holds a signed executive order during the 60th presidential inauguration parade at Capital One Arena in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    Like a clogged sewer erupting into the streets, Donald Trump returned to office on Monday, and, as promised, unleashed his filth upon the country. In a flurry of lawless, unconstitutional, racist, bigoted, violent, and, in some cases, plainly stupid executive orders and pardons, Trump set his reign of terror in motion. The future we feared has officially arrived.

    Trump’s activity is, as always, designed to keep people distracted, defensive, and demoralized. He did so much stuff in the opening hours of his junta that the media can’t process it all, and Americans can’t keep up. It will take the courts literal years to process the lawsuits against his administration based on just its first half day, and we already know that the media is a Dr. Moreau monstrosity that has the attention span of mosquitoes, the memory of goldfish, and the courage of chickens.

    I cannot tell you the worst thing Trump did in his first hours—“the worst” is a subjective assessment largely based on how close you are to the people Trump would like to harm. There is, however, one executive order that attempts to nullify an entire constitutional amendment by fiat, so that is the one I have decided to focus on.

    “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—better known as the birthright citizenship executive order—attempts to cancel the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Getting rid of constitutional amendments via executive order is new, and, for me at least, “the worst.”

    Nearly every line of this order is wrong, misleading, or flagrantly unconstitutional. To appreciate the depths of racism and lawlessness embedded within it, you need to read every line. Lawyers have done that, and a lawsuit has already been filed attempting to stop the order. But I believe every single person in this country who is not a mouth-breathing racist deserves to understand just how despicable this thing is. I want you to be able to fight the racists in your family, chapter and verse, on this unmitigated piece of trash.

    So allow me to present the order to you with my annotated commentary, sentence by sentence, section by section. Let’s start with the title:

    “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”

    Make no mistake: This title is a nod to the “Great Replacement” theory. The implication here is that the “meaning” of what it is to be “American” is devalued if that meaning is commingled with certain kinds of immigrant blood. To “protect” the value of being an American (for white people), non-white people who were merely born here must be excluded.

    *

    “Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.”

    This is simply wrong. Citizenship is a privilege, but it is not a “gift.” It’s not bestowed by individual benevolent white folks when they happen to be in a good mood. Birthright citizenship is a right, one that has been enshrined in the organizing document of our country.

    There is a legal process for taking away rights, but that process has nothing to do with the bigoted orders of an aging despot. Taking away the right to birthright citizenship requires nothing less than a constitutional amendment. Trump wants you to forget that by pretending that citizenship is a gift.

    *

    “The Fourteenth Amendment states: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.”

    Both the Dred Scott Decision and the 14th Amendment were trying to fix a fundamental flaw in the original US Constitution: The founders, in their racist wisdom, did not define “American” citizenship. At the founding, there was no such thing as a “US” citizen; instead, citizenship flowed up from the states. You were a citizen of New York or Virginia or wherever, based on the citizenship laws of that state. That meant that the circumstances of your birth could confer citizenship to you in one state, but not another.

    Obviously, that meant the legal status of enslaved Africans varied by state. In some states, “free” Black people were citizens, while enslaved Black people were not. In some states, enslaved Black people became citizens when they moved to free states. In some states, citizen Black people became slaves when they crossed borders. In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court resolved the issue by declaring Black people everywhere, in every state, “not citizens.” That decision was so bad we fought a war over it.

    Current Issue
     
    February 2025 Issue

    After that war, the victors wrote the 14th Amendment, which not only granted citizenship to the formerly enslaved Africans but also created this new concept, a citizen of the United States. That person enjoyed rights and privileges regardless of state lines.

    Now, as Trump and his Republicans try to undo birthright citizenship, you can understand what they’re really trying to do: they’re trying to go back to the pre–Dred Scott days, and make citizenship subject to the prevailing political predilections of the era. And remember that tying citizenships to politics can lead to open war.

    *

    “But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

    This is a lie. It has, literally, repeatedly been interpreted to confer citizenship universally to people born within the United States.

    *

    “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that ‘a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.”

    Trump is throwing around the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because it’s a piece of legal jargon that most people don’t understand. He’s trying to suggest ambiguity where there is none.

    To explain: There was one group of people clearly born in the United States who did not get citizenship with the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868: Native Americans. The white people who wrote the 14th Amendment were interested in giving citizenship to the humans they stole and brought here and forced to work for free; they were not interested in giving citizenship to people whose lands they hadn’t yet stolen, or people living on reservations which were not officially “subject to” the laws of United States (except the ones preventing them from getting their land back). The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language is there so that white (former) enslavers could continue their westward colonization and subjugation, because the Indigenous people who were about to get ethnically cleansed by our suddenly well-armed and well-trained post–Civil War armies were not going to be US citizens. Native Americans didn’t get full citizenship rights until 1924, with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act.

    Moreover, everybody who lives here is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, regardless of their legal status in the country. If you don’t believe me, just try to be a person who is out of status and breaks one of our laws, and watch how quickly the “jurisdiction” of the US crawls up your ass. Claiming you are not subject to the laws of the United States while in the United States is a good way to end up in a United States prison.

    *

    “Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth,”

    This is where Trump tries to straight-up change the Constitution without passing a constitutional amendment.

    If you take the long view of human history, there are basically two ways to do automatic citizenship: birthright citizenship or citizenship by descent. Birthright citizenship (sometimes called “jus soli” by scholars, which means “rule of the land”) is how we do it in the New World: You are a citizen where you are born. Citizenship by descent (sometimes called “jus sanguinis” or “rule of the blood”) means your citizenship depends on where your parents were born. It’s mostly prevalent in the Old World.

    Here’s a map that illustrates the Old/New World divide on this issue; it’s so stark that you’d think that people on opposite sides of the Atlantic never spoke to each other.

    Why does the world look this way? Well, colonization and diasporas. As whites from the Old World set about raping and pillaging vast swaths of the world, it was pretty important to the colonizers that their spawn were citizens of their parents’ home country, regardless of what nation they were busy subjugating at the time they were born. Meanwhile, for the Old World countries that were colonized by whites, it was important to call their dispersed communities “citizens” of their home countries, no matter where they happened to be when their homelands broke the yoke of white oppression.

    The New World does it differently because… the large majority of us are the descendants of colonizers, immigrants, or slaves. Sometimes all three. It doesn’t make sense to tie New World citizenship to blood, because most of us ain’t from here by blood if you go back far enough. The whole point of New World citizenship is that it doesn’t depend on where your parents are from; it’s based on where you are from.

    But Trump and his white supremacists are obsessed with blood. Trump’s executive order tried to smuggle in a right based on blood, and that is simply a concept that does not exist in the Constitution. In this country, the only things your parents can pass on to you are money, unearned privilege, and knowledge—or (as the case may be) ignorance. Rights are not passed down by blood—except in this unconstitutional executive order.

    *

    (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

    This is the Kamala Harris provision. You see, Trump shouldn’t have been allowed to run for president because he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment when he rose up in rebellion against the government he had previously sworn an oath to defend. But the Supreme Court decided to ignore the 14th Amendment for the purposes of seeing a white man get what he wanted. Here, Trump is saying that Harris shouldn’t have been able to run for president, because the very specific situation this section describes is the situation of Harris’s birth: She was born in the US to two parents who were here legally, but with temporary status.

    The pettiness toward his former political rival is probably what got Trump on board, but for the broader collection of white Republicans and capitalists who support him, this provision is critical. That’s because even Republicans understand that we need immigrants in this country, not only to perform low-skilled work at exploitative wages, but also to perform highly skilled work should America still want to be a thought and innovation leader. We need immigrants for their labor and their intellectual capacity.

    But once these people have contributed to America’s wealth, the white people running the joint would still like the option to throw them away. By preventing immigrants on temporary work or student visas from having American-citizen children, the Trump administration is essentially relegating them to permanent second-class status. It’s the “you can come here and enrich us, but you can’t be us” version of white supremacy. Unless, that is, they eventually choose to give the “gift” of citizenship to immigrants.

    *

    “Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

    This is the operations clause. It attempts to prevent state agencies, like the Bureau of Vital Statistics, from issuing birth certificates to the newborn children of these immigrant parents. It prevents the Social Security Administration from issuing Social Security numbers and cards. It essentially tries to make the children of immigrants legally disappear, dropping them into a limbo where their status and very existence can be forever questioned by authorities. If the executive order is allowed to take effect, we might truly never know how many people it affects, because the order interferes with basic recordkeeping.

    Critically, this section also says that documents provided by some agencies in some states should not be accepted by other agencies in other states. This, my friends, is exactly what Dred Scott was all about. Trump is trying to create a class of people who may be recognized as citizens in, say, California, with all the rights and privileges thereof, but who then lose those rights when they travel to Texas. It would then allow Texas to deport those people who became noncitizens only when they crossed state lines, not unlike the way Dred Scott allegedly became a slave again the moment he went back to Missouri from Illinois.

    Again, we have literally tried doing things this way before, and it led to war.

    *

    “(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.”

    The executive order is not retroactive. It only applies going forward to new babies born in the United States.

    It might be tempting to take some comfort in this, but… don’t. We all know that this executive order is just a prelude for Trump’s mass deportation policies. People whom the Trump administration will try to send away will argue that they can’t be separated from their American-born citizen children. The administration will say that these children are not “real” citizens, even though technically this order isn’t supposed to apply retroactively. The 30-day thing will not matter, as Trump’s newly pardoned brownshirt forces are forcibly deporting people from the country without due process.

    But the courts will pretend it does. The second problem with this alleged 30-day waiting period is that courts, including the Supreme Court, might pretend that it is true, and thus deny standing to anybody who is trying to sue to stop the order until there is an American-born plaintiff who is directly “harmed” by it. This means we’re at least one month before a plaintiff directly harmed by this is born, or 10 months before a plaintiff conceived after this rule is born. Trump’s court might refuse to recognize a plaintiff with standing to sue over this case until the little noncitizen baby can say the word “lawyer,” and that is more than enough time for this facially unconstitutional order to do immense harm, even if the courts belatedly get around to ruling it unconstitutional.

    *

    “(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.”

    If the “except for Elon Musk” part of this order weren’t obvious before, it should be now. Musk’s future kids can still get citizenship, Trump wants to make that very clear, for some reason.

    *

    “Sec. 3. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.”

    If Trump had appointed actual American patriots to any of these positions, it’s likely they simply wouldn’t follow an unconstitutional order. Instead, he’s picked sycophants with no independence or backbone for all of these positions, so they’ll do what he tells them. Later, they’ll say they were “just following orders,” like so many Nazi apparatchiks before them.

    *

    “(b) The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this order’s implementation with respect to their operations and activities.”

    The “guidance” issued could make the whole monstrous order even worse. I’ll have to wait and see what the agency heads say, because I am not creative enough to anticipate how one might go about providing guidance on how to implement an unconstitutional rule.

    That’s it for the law part of the executive order. The rest consists of definitions of terms and general provisions, nothing mission-critical.

    On its face, this order violates the 14th Amendment, the statutes that mirror the 14th Amendment, and the Administrative Procedures Act (which prohibits “arbitrary and capricious” laws and orders such as “don’t give birth while on a student visa or else”). I’d also argue that it could violate the Equal Protection Clause, because it focuses more on the status of the mother than on the father. And it could violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution if we’re in a situation where citizenship granted in a blue state is not recognized by red states.

    But I wonder when the courts will get to a discussion of these issues on the merits. Because the government and Trump judges will likely begin by arguing that nobody even has standing to sue the administration over this constitutional violation. They’ll say that an immigrant who is not pregnant has no right to sue, nor does the out-of-status person who is expecting. They’ll say that states don’t have a right to sue, because they’re not “harmed” by the order. They’ll wait until an actual baby is born, and denied documentation, and then force that literal baby to sue.

    In the meantime, the courts could allow a patently unconstitutional order to go into effect and watch as the white-wing media desperately tries to normalize it. They could watch as Trump’s goons attempt to “enforce” the order as he puts families and their American-citizen children on trains and sends them to camps, waiting for just the “right” plaintiff to emerge.

    Even if the courts do get around to “stopping” the order, Trump controls the military. He controls the State Department and the Justice Department. He controls the Social Security Administration. I don’t have a lot of belief that he will follow a court order on this, even if the courts order him to stop.

    All I can do is tell you that the order is unconstitutional, and racist, and obviously so. The people who support this order are wrong, and racist. The journalists who promote and normalize the order are wrong and racist. This order violates one of the fundamental principles of the United States, and people should react to it like it does.

    Unfortunately, the order upholds another, perhaps even more fundamental principle that has always animated the American experiment: the idea that this country is for white people, and nobody else. The people who believe that, and have always believed that, are the people who hope this order succeeds.

    As I keep saying, we’ve tried to do citizenship Trump’s way before. It led to war. It could again, if Trump is allowed to get away with it.

     

    ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

    Elie Mystal

    Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and the host of its legal podcast, Contempt of Court. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. His first book is the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, published by The New Press. Elie can be followed @ElieNYC.


    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/01/20/us/politics/20executive-orders-Jan6.html

    Read President Trump’s Proclamation Granting Clemency to January 6 Rioters
    January 20, 2025


    A PDF version of this document with embedded text is available at the link below:

    Download the original document (pdf) 

    This proclamation ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation. Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article Il, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I do hereby: (a) commute the sentences of the following individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, to time served as of January 20, 2025:

    • Stewart Rhodes
    • Kelly Meggs
    • Kenneth Harrelson
    • Thomas Caldwell
    • Jessica Watkins
    • Roberto Minuta
      Edward Vallejo
    • David Moerschel
    • Joseph Hackett
    • Ethan Nordean
    * Joseph Biggs
    • Zachary Rehl
    • Dominic Pezzola
    • Jeremy Bertino

    (b) grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all other individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021; The Attorney General shall administer and effectuate the immediate issuance of certificates of pardon to all individuals described in section (b) above, and shall ensure that all individuals convicted of offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, who are currently held in prison are released immediately. The Bureau of Prisons shall immediately implement all instructions from the Department of Justice regarding this directive. I further direct the Attorney General to pursue dismissal with preiudice to the government of all pending indictments against individuals for their conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Bureau of Prisons shall immediately implement all instructions from the Department of Justice regarding this directive.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.