Tag: crisis
California National Guard

My Son Is A California National Guardman, Swept Into Trump's Power Grab

I served in the U.S. Army 36 years ago. And my son—who’s had opportunities I never did as a Salvadoran immigrant—chose to follow in my footsteps, joining the California National Guard.

After spending a year in the Middle East, he returned home and was activated to help in the aftermath of the wildfires that devastated Southern California in January. He was stationed in Altadena, a hard-hit, working-class city, where he did what the Guard is meant to do: help people in crisis.

That experience changed him. Even after being deactivated, he still drives an hour each way, several times a week, to keep helping as the city and its residents rebuild. That’s who he is. And yeah, I’m tearing up just thinking about it. I am so incredibly proud of him.

He signed up to serve his community, not to be a pawn in President Donald Trump’s fascist cosplay. But now? His unit has been activated again, and this time not to help people.

You can’t imagine the rage I feel.

Trump has spent his entire presidency railing against dissent. Now that he’s losing in Congress, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion, he’s escalating—using peaceful protests as a pretext for his dream of military dictatorship.

In January, my son and his fellow first responders were welcomed by Southern Californians with food, gifts, and gratitude. Today, Trump is sending them into those same communities as symbols of repression. He’s destroyed the goodwill they built—and he doesn’t care.

He wants confrontation. He wants escalation. He wants violence, because he thinks it gives him license to go even further.

Trump is trying to break this country before it breaks him.

I’m scared for my son. But I’m proud. Proud of him. Proud of this community. Proud of the people in the streets refusing to back down. This moment feels inevitable. We saw it coming. We warned it was coming. We hoped it wouldn’t, but now it’s here.

So yes, I’m scared. But I’m also burning with righteous fury. And that fury is stronger than Trump’s cruelty or the bloodlust of his followers.

Let’s fuck Trump up.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

White House

Fascism's Follies: Trump Create Crisis At West Point

There is a crisis at West Point. This one is not self-invented, as other crises at the have been previously, but rather invented at the White House by Donald Trump.

The crisis is familiar. Trump has ordered that all “quotas, objectives, and goals” in admissions, promotions and career fields be ended at the service academies, that teaching things called “gender ideology,” “critical race theory,” and “DEI,” (presumably as an academic subject that no one has ever heard of) be ended forthwith, and that “lethal force be promoted” by teaching that “our founding documents remain the most powerful force for human good in history.”

This has caused something of a panic at the academy. They’re tossing out history courses on “Topics in Gender History” and “Race, Ethnicity, Nation,” according to an op-ed in the New York Times written by Graham Parsons, a tenured professor of philosophy at West Point who is resigning from the faculty at the end of the term in protest against the changes forced on the academy by Trump’s gender and race warriors at the Pentagon and White House.

“West Point seems to believe that by submitting to the Trump administration, it can save itself in the long run,” Parsons opined in the Times, writing without permission or having submitted his manuscript for clearance by the academy leadership.

I am something of an expert about change at West Point. Change comes slowly to the 250-plus year old academy, but it has happened. And each time significant changes have occurred at West Point, military leadership and academy alumni have been convinced that it would lead to the end of West Point’s history of providing the nation with Army leaders of merit and honor.

This is not the first time academic change has happened at West Point. Prior to 1985, the academy had no program of “majors.” Every cadet graduated with a bachelor of science with heavy emphasis on applied mathematics, engineering, and military leadership. When the academy began offering a program of 45 majors, allowing graduates to go into graduate programs in law, medicine, computer technology and other subjects in addition to their regular service in the combat and support arms, you’d have thought the earth had shifted and West Point had begun to crumble into the Hudson. No more four years of calculus crammed into just two? No requirement to study ordnance engineering, the science of weapons? My God! What was the world coming to?

But by the time the majors program arrived at West Point, the academy had already endured two of its greatest earthquakes: the admission a Black cadet in the late 1800’s, and the arrival of women when the U.S. military was integrated by gender in 1976. The military academies also endured another major change. In the early 1970’s, compulsory attendance at church was ended with an 8-0 Supreme Court decision refusing to even hear the government’s appeal of a lower court decision. Along with three of my classmates, I played a role in the cessation of this clearly unconstitutional practice by filing complaints with the Secretary of the Army that exhausted administrative remedies, allowing a federal lawsuit to be filed after we graduated. At the time, we were told that if “mandatory chapel” was ended, it would lead to the end of West Point itself.

In 2011, the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” allowed the admission of gay and lesbian cadets and for them to serve openly at the academy. This was yet another revolution that for decades Pentagon and academy leadership thought would lead to the collapse of “good order and discipline” and a reduction in the combat effectiveness and readiness of West Point graduates.

It goes without saying that none of the aforementioned earthquakes led to the collapse of West Point or the other service academies. In fact, they have thrived, with applications for admission higher than they have ever been.

In fact, I would make the argument that West Point is better in every way since the admission of Blacks, women, and gays and lesbians. It hardly bears saying that neither the army nor any of the other uniformed services is comprised solely of white males. We would not have a fighting force to defend the nation without the honorable service of a diverse population of volunteers who fill the ranks of enlisted soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and the officer corps.

What Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth are trying to do at West Point and the other service academies is fascistic folly. The Naval Academy, responding to Trump’s executive order on DEI and gender, removed more than 300 books from the academy library. The town of Annapolis, which surrounds the academy, responded by making all the banned books readily available in the town library and its bookstores.

The removal of certain topics of study from the curriculum at West Point is not going to materially affect cadets who undergo extensive training apart from the classroom, both at the academy and during summers spent training with real-world army units in the field. A cadet spending his or her summer training in a unit with a female company commander or a Black platoon leader – or both – is worth a half dozen books on gender studies or critical race theory. The same is true at West Point itself. The academy has had multiple women and Blacks who have served as “First Captain,” the highest-ranking cadet. West Point has had a female Commandant of Cadets, the brigadier general in charge of the Corps of Cadets, and a Black lieutenant general who has served as Superintendent of Cadets, the academy’s highest-ranking officer.

Diversity in the academy’s leadership and in the leadership of the corps of cadets will not end just because Donald Trump signed an executive order, nor will the diversity of the army itself. About 11 percent of soldiers are Black; about 17 percent of soldiers are women. I don’t know the percentage of the army who are gay or lesbian, but I can tell you that the great majority of my class of 800 had no idea that about 25 of our classmates were gay, back in the time when the closet was not a choice but a necessity for gay people in both military and civilian life.

Donald Trump can sign all the executive orders he wants, and Pete Hegseth can thunder about DEI and “wokeism” until he goes hoarse, but they are not going to change the facts on the ground either at West Point or in the Army at large. Women and Blacks and gays and lesbians are not going to be erased by fascist edicts, and by the way, neither are transgender service members, who I guarantee you will find ways to wait out the current nightmare of executive orders that can attempt to cancel their service, but will never bring to any sort of end who they are and their desire to serve their country. Even if some are forced out of the service, they will be back when Trump’s executive orders are inevitably reversed.

West Point has been there on the Hudson since Thomas Jefferson founded the it in 1802 as the nation’s first service academy. It’s not going away. The passion and patriotism of young men and women of all races and sexual persuasions and sexual identities will overpower this authoritarian hiccup in our history. Fifty-six years after I graduated from West Point, I know this as well as I know my own name.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. He writes every day at luciantruscott.substack.com and you can follow him on Bluesky @lktiv.bsky.social and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Lucian Truscott Newsletter.

'Sudden Stop': A Trump-Branded Crisis Hits US Economy (And Dollar)

'Sudden Stop': A Trump-Branded Crisis Hits US Economy (And Dollar)

Bloomberg posted an article titled “Markets Are Discovering the Real Trump Trade Is ‘Sell America’.” That’s about right. Look at the value of the dollar on international markets, shown at the top of this post. For a while after the election investors loved Trump, not wisely but too well. But in the face of one idiotic policy move after another, they’ve gradually fallen out of love, and now seem to be capitulating. I think they still haven’t faced up to how bad it is, but they’re figuring it out.

What we’re seeing now is something familiar to those of us who have studied economic crises in other countries, usually but not always emerging markets. For this is looking more and more like a “sudden stop.” That’s what happens when a country that has relied on large inflows of foreign capital loses the confidence of international investors. The inflow of money dries up — and the economic consequences are usually ugly.

Trump inherited an economy in remarkably good shape. We’d had “immaculate disinflation”: The inflation spike of 2021-22, largely caused by Covid-related supply chain disruptions, had faded away without a large rise in unemployment:


Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve

But Trump wasted no time in squandering the hand he’d been given. It’s not just the destructive tariffs. It’s also the chaos, as policy zigzags wildly, and the craziness. If you were a foreign investor, would you want to bet on America right now? Would you even want to visit to look at investment prospects, given the risk that you might be imprisoned by ICE because you once sent a text critical of Trump?

The economic consequences of sudden stops are, as I said, usually ugly. I’m writing this from Portugal, which — along with other southern European nations — was hit by a sudden stop in capital inflows just as it was recovering from the global financial crisis of 2008. The result was another severe economic slump that produced immense misery:


Can the United States suffer comparably? We have some big structural advantages that, say, Portugal in 2011 or Argentina in 2001 lacked. Above all, America’s foreign debt is overwhelmingly in dollars. This means that a plunging dollar won’t cause the domestic-currency value of our debt to explode, the way it typically does in emerging-market crises. And U.S. businesses and individuals have large overseas investments that will become more valuable in dollar terms as the dollar falls. As a result, the Trump slump in the dollar will, at least temporarily, lead to an improvement in our international investment position, the difference between U.S. assets and liabilities.

On the other hand, Portugal in 2011 or even Argentina in 2001 had mostly sane leadership. We don’t. As a number of people have pointed out, there may be no other government in the world that would have kept Pete Hegseth in office given his performance so far.

And as things get worse, there’s no reason at all to believe that Trump and those around him will look for policy solutions. Instead, we’ll see a combination of denial and efforts to blame someone else. Trump has already declared that reports of rising prices are “fake news.” And he’s already setting the stage for making Jerome Powell — “Mr. Too Late” and “a major loser” — his scapegoat for everything that goes wrong.

Coming next are conspiracy theories.

[Screengrab may have been fake?]

None of this was necessary. The U.S. economy was doing well before Trump came into office. Trumponomics isn’t a response to real problems. It’s a president who has waged a war on competence indulging his personal obsessions.

But America and the world will suffer the consequences.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and former professor at MIT and Princeton who now teaches at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. From 2000 to 2024, he wrote a column for The New York Times. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, where he now posts almost every day.

Reprinted with permission from Paul Krugman.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Joe Biden

Fox's Right-Wing Crime 'Crisis' Bombs -- Because Violent Crime Is Down

After President Joe Biden accurately declared that murders and other violent crimes fell last year, Fox News responded by urging viewers to focus instead on individual tragic anecdotes of violent crimes, particularly ones involving migrants. The network is concocting an unverifiable surge of “migrant crime,” which its personalities can use to reinstall Donald Trump in the White House.

“Last year, the United States had one of the lowest rates of all violent crime — of all violent crimes in more than 50 years,” Biden said Wednesday in remarks to police chiefs from major cities. “Murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery all dropped sharply, along with burglary, property crime, and theft. And it matters.” Biden attributed the decrease to the work of “the law enforcement and community leaders here today” and touted the impact of the 2021 American Rescue Plan’s funding for public safety. He concluded by saying,“Our plan is working, but we still have much more to do.”

Biden’s statements are consistent with the data evaluated by Jeff Asher, a crime analyst whose work has appeared in outlets like The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Axios. Asher wrote in December:

Murder plummeted in the United States in 2023, likely at one of the fastest rates of decline ever recorded. What’s more, every type of Uniform Crime Report Part I crime with the exception of auto theft is likely down a considerable amount this year relative to last year according to newly reported data through September from the FBI.

Americans tend to think that crime is rising, but the evidence we have right now points to sizable declines this year (even if there are always outliers). The quarterly data in particular suggests 2023 featured one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the United States in more than 50 years.

Biden’s use of data to show that the violent crime spike, which originated during the Trump administration, has receded under his tenure is an antidote to Fox’s typical practice of leveraging individual crime anecdotes to damage Democratic politicians. Fox personalities have spent the last several months diligently trying to create a narrative of a wave of “migrant crime” purportedly triggered by Biden’s border policies, flooding the airwaves with reporting on such anecdata. They are working hand-in-glove with Trump, who used a recent interview on the network to take credit for originating the “new category” of “migrant crime.”

“There is no evidence that immigrants in the country illegally have historically committed more violent crimes, and there is no evidence that such immigrants are committing more violent crimes,” the Washington Post’s Philip Bump noted in an analysis of the Fox’s coverage — and Republicans are responsible for spiking bipartisan border security legislation for the explicit reason that Trump wants to use border chaos to win the election — but that’s not slowing them down. (Update: NBC News reported that its “review of available 2024 crime data… shows overall crime levels dropping in those cities that have received the most migrants,“ including Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver, New York, and Los Angeles.)

Fox’s response to Biden citing actual crime data seemed to range from offended to infuriated, with everyone from “straight news” correspondents to prime-time propagandists pushing back by pointing to anecdotes. Their Wednesday commentary presents a case study of how Fox’s day-in, day-out coverage uses individual instances of crime to terrify their viewers and encourage them to vote for Republicans.

Fox reporter Jacqui Heinrich previewed Biden’s speech — and telegraphed her network’s partisan counterattack — on Wednesday afternoon.

“Unclear how compelling a case he can make that his record on crime is better than Trump’s, I suppose he’s going to look at the numbers and try to say that that’s the evidence people need to look at,” she said on America Reports. “But anecdotally, when you have families and communities experiencing high levels of crime, and especially experiencing high levels of migrant crime, when you’ve got record numbers at the border — and this has been the Achilles heel of the administration — unclear if that’s going to be a winning argument.”

Anchor Sandra Smith lashed out at Biden after the speech concluded, falsely claiming that Biden had not included a time frame for his statement that violent crimes dropped and saying that the president was sending a “brutal message” to people from unnamed cities experiencing rising crime.

“You know, I'm just looking at the list of participants in that room and the cities from which they come: Philadelphia, Buffalo, Miami, Milwaukee, Chicago. I mean, Congresswoman, I don't know who he thought his audience was by standing up and touting -- he said, ‘Murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, robberies all dropped sharply,’ without context or time frame,” Smith said. (In reality, police departments in Philadelphia, Buffalo, Miami, Milwaukee, and Chicago all reported decreases in homicides or violent crime in 2023.)

“That's a brutal message to people when they're saying pretty loudly that they don't like the crime that is on the rise in their cities,” she added.

Fox’s flagship “news side” program, Special Report, did not mention Biden’s remarks about crime data — but it did make time for more anecdotes. “For the third and fourth time this week, we are telling you about an illegal immigrant arrested in connection with a brutal crime," Bret Baier said at the top of a segment.

Later in the program, Trumpist radio host Hugh Hewitt implicitly explained the political strategy Fox is pursuing. “Every single act of violence perpetrated by an illegal immigrant between now and [the election], expect it to be a headline, it is Joe Biden's Achilles heel,” he said. Baier responded by highlighting “the recent headlines that we have seen just in the past few days about these heinous crimes allegedly at the hands of illegal immigrants.”

Fox’s evening show propagandists piled on, touting individual instances of “migrant crime,” laying them at Biden’s feet, and warning viewers that they could be the next victims.

Laura Ingraham scoffed at Biden’s use of data in his speech, saying that “crime is on everyone's mind,” that “we all know communities don't feel safer,” and that “there's no meaningful change in the policies that are making America more dangerous.”

“Anyone who thinks that this is an isolated incident, no. Women and children are being brutalized by illegal aliens all over the United States,” she later added before highlighting individual cases, as on-screen text read, “the deadly cost of Biden’s open border.”

Jesse Watters went even further. “There is a migrant crime spree killing Americans and the president is an accessory to murder,” he alleged, highlighting anecdotes and attacking Biden’s speech. “A vote for Biden is a vote for more death,” he concluded.

Fox is repeating the strategy they tried in the months leading up to the 2022 midterm elections. Republicans, at the urging of Fox’s then-star host Tucker Carlson, tried to win back Congress by focusing on crime, and Fox poured on the coverage in an attempt to carry them to victory.

But when data on the period was finally reported, it turned out that violent crime had actually fallen in 2022. Fox had manufactured a Biden “crime crisis” based on anecdotes because they wanted to help Republicans win elections. And two years later, they’re doing it all again.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World