Tag: americans
2017 inaugural address

Now We Know What Trump's 'American Carnage' Rant Was About

Does anyone remember “American carnage”? In his 2017 inaugural address Donald Trump portrayed a collapsing society, emphasizing in particular the “crime and gangs and drugs” destroying America’s cities.

It was a peculiar and disturbing speech, in part because it bore no relationship to reality. Then as now, America had many problems. But runaway urban crime wasn’t one of them. In fact, Trump chose to proclaim urban carnage after a remarkable generation-long run of plunging crime in our major cities. New York, for example, had only 335 murders in 2016, down from 2,262 in 1990.

So what was that about?

At the time, I thought it was mostly about sadism. Trump clearly loves punishing people, so he was eager to portray a nation full of people who needed punishing. And it remains true, as Adam Serwer pointed out back in 2018, that for Trump and many of his supporters cruelty is a goal in itself, that they rejoice in the suffering of those they hate and fear.

But the events unfolding in Los Angeles as you read this and, I fear, the events likely to unfold across much of America soon, quite possibly this weekend, suggest that the motivations of Trump and his cronies go deeper than mere (mere!) sadism. They want to use false claims of chaos to justify a power grab that, if successful, would mark the end of the American experiment.

As I assume everyone knows by now, on Friday heavily armed — and masked — ICE agents began raiding workplaces in and around Los Angeles, seeking to arrest people they claimed were illegal immigrants. Crowds quickly gathered to protest. After all, ICE wasn’t rounding up members of violent gangs. It was scooping up ordinary people doing ordinary jobs, many of whom had friends and relatives in the neighborhood.

The protests were relatively peaceful, although there were some scuffles, objects thrown and vandalism. Los Angeles has experienced real riots in the past. This didn’t even come close. But ICE and some other law enforcement personnel responded with heavy application of force — not lethal weapons, at least not yet, but lots of tear gas, rubber bullets, and so on.

Until ICE moved in Los Angeles was, in fact, remarkably peaceful. Like other major American cities, LA experienced a significant but not huge crime wave in the aftermath of Covid but has since seen that wave more than completely recede:

Los Angeles right now is probably as safe as it has ever been.

But if you read Trump, which you should to get past the sanewashing, the City of Angels sounds like a scene from Fallout:

And Noem has called LA a “city of criminals.”

As a New Yorker, I’m accustomed to seeing my quite livable city portrayed as a hellscape. Still, there are 13 million people living in Greater Los Angeles who can testify that it has not, in fact, been invaded and occupied, let alone taken over by insurrectionist mobs.

Oh, and let’s not forget that an actual insurrectionist mob tried to overturn the 2020 election — and Trump has pardoned its members.

But no matter. Trump wanted an excuse to mobilize the National Guard, even though the governor of California not only didn’t request it, but has sued Trump to demand that he rescind the order.

When did a president last federalize the Guard against a governor’s wishes? Sixty years ago, when Lyndon Johnson mobilized the Alabama National Guard against the wishes of George Wallace, so that the Guard could protect civil rights marchers.

I’m still seeing some news analyses portraying what’s happening as a confrontation over immigration. And there are definitely people in the administration, led by Stephen Miller, who simply hate immigrants — legal or not, it doesn’t much matter. White South Africans seem to be the only exception.

But this looks bigger even than a play by an administration that has been finding, to its horror, that mass deportation is a lot harder than it sounds — especially if you make any effort at all to follow due process.

What it looks like is an attempt to create confrontations that can be used to impose something that, for practical purposes, amounts to martial law.

And if that’s what it’s really about, what’s happening in Los Angeles is just the beginning.

Most immediately, what is going to happen this Saturday? The government is going to hold a costly military parade in Washington, even though we aren’t celebrating any recent victories I’m aware of. This is the kind of thing one expects to see in Red Square, not the capital of a democracy. And guess what: the parade will also fall on Donald Trump’s birthday.

Many pro-democracy groups have teamed up to organize protests against the parade. There will be “No Kings Day” demonstrations all across the country. I don’t know whether there will be any violent incidents. But I’m quite sure that Trump and his allies will claim that violent incidents are happening and seek excuses to use force against the protestors.

So it’s important to understand what is happening here. Trump isn’t reacting to any real threat of disorder in California. And while anti-immigrant bigotry is certainly an important factor, it’s not the whole story.

No, this is all about finding excuses to use force against Trump’s critics and opponents and justify an anti-democratic power grab.

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 daily Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

'No Kings Day': Americans Defending Democracy -- And Health Care

'No Kings Day': Americans Defending Democracy -- And Health Care

I’ve spent much of the past few days mulling the significance of the Trump regime sending National Guard troops into Los Angeles. Gov. Gavin Newsom did not ask for them. Mayor Karen Bass did not ask for them. The tens of thousands of city and state police available to Newsom and Bass were more than adequate to curtail the vandalism perpetrated by some demonstrators during the weekend’s protests against the large-scale ICE raids in the city.

Trump’s action has only one precedent in recent history. In March 1965, President Lyndon Johnson ordered the National Guard into Alabama against the wishes of Gov. George Wallace. LBJ felt compelled to act to protect civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, who had been viciously attacked and beaten the previous week by state and local police.

Richard Nixon didn’t order the National Guard onto the campuses of Kent State and Jackson State during protests against the Vietnam War in the spring of 1970, which resulted in the deaths of six students. Ohio’s Gov. James Rhodes and Mississippi’s Gov. William Winter were responsible for those unnecessary and ultimately tragic actions.

Trump’s order — unjustified, lawless, a gross violation of California’s rights — raises the serious question, as much as anything that he has done to date, of whether we still live in a free country. On a number of fronts, the Supreme Court has allowed his flagrantly illegal actions to proceed unimpeded despite lower courts ruling them either illegal or unconstitutional. Congress lays supine.

The checks and balances envisioned by this country’s founders are no longer operative. They are not providing the basic protections on which freedom depends, which includes above all the government adhering to the rule of law and our elected leaders upholding the Constitution they swore to defend.

Yesterday morning, Newsom promised to sue the federal government. He raised the specter of witholding federal taxes should Trump follow through on his threat to withold government payments to the state (which would be a net plus for California like most heavily blue states, which send more to the federal government than they receive in return).

Those of us who live in major urban areas with large immigrant populations worry that our cities and our states may become the next targets of large-scale ICE raids, which will inevitably provoke a reaction from justifiably outraged young protesters. Let’s not forget that urban economies (as well as many rural agricultural and meat-processing areas) are heavily dependent on the 11 million undocumented workers the Trump regime wants to deport.

Even if a narrow majority of the general public (about 55 percent) back stricter enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws, a far larger majority backs adherence to the rule of law. A Pew Research Center poll in April found 78 percent of Americans wanted the Trump administration to follow federal court rulings, which included 91 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans. The overall number rises to 88 percent for Supreme Court rulings.

This coming Saturday, while Trump holds a Soviet-style military parade in downtown Washington, there will be mass protests across the country. People will be carrying banners declaring “No More Kings.” I’ve volunteered to be a marshall to help assure that no misguided demonstrators or agents provocateurs provide a pretext for police action. I encourage all my readers to take part.

But protests are not enough. Only an engaged citizenry can defeat the reactionary forces here at home that threaten the values that truly made America great: equality, fairness, compassion, and equal justice before laws that everyone, including the president of the United States, adheres to.

Health care on the line

With that thought in mind, I hope that you will take time over the next few weeks to let your Senators know that you oppose the vicious cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies included in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The Congressional Budget Office last week predicted just those sections alone will result in around 15 million people losing health insurance over the next decade.

Let’s put that number in perspective. There are currently around 28 million uninsured in the U.S. or about eight percent of the population, which is down from 17 oercent when Barack Obama took office in 2009. The 2010 Affordable Care Act, for all its flaws (which I won’t go into here), was tremendously successful in achieving its main goal of reducing the U.S. uninsured rate. Add 15 million more people to the ranks of the uninsured and that rate will soar back to at least 12 percent.

Who will pay for the costs of those people when they show up in the emergency room needing health care that they can’t pay for? You and your employers, who will wind up paying higher rates for private health insurance to pay for the cost of hospitals’ and physicians’ uncompensated care.

Rural hospitals, which are heavily dependent on Medicaid funding, will get hurt the most because states where most of those hospitals are located cannot afford to make up for the cutbacks in federal support. The destitute elderly in nursing homes will also suffer as their staffs get cut due to the proposed law’s ending of the Biden administration’s minimum staffing rule.

And to what end? The work requirements that Republicans claim are merely aimed at getting shirkers off the rolls is a smoke screen to hide the bill’s true intent: To keep alive unnecessary tax breaks for the most well-off people in this country. That $4 trillion-plus giveaway is so large that even after making massive cuts in health care and other domestic spending, it will still increase the federal deficit by over $2 trillion over the next decade.

Merrill Goozner is a former editor of Modern Healthcare, where he writes a weekly column. He is a former reporter for The Chicago Tribune and professor of business journalism at New York University. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News.

Donald Trump

Humiliated Trump Seeks To Deflect Attention With Los Angeles Provocation

What is our moral responsibility as citizens of the United States when the President of the United States moves to deploy thousands of American soldiers against us?

Trump signed a memo on Friday night ordering 2,000 members of the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles County after federal immigration agents in riot gear squared off with hundreds of protesters for a second consecutive day.

Trump’s action is extreme although technically legal. Title 10 of the United States Code allows a president to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” In a presidential memo, Trump said, “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

Why is he doing it, and why now?

Because Trump can’t stand to be humiliated — as he has been in the last two weeks. By senate Republicans refusal to quickly enact his so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. By Xi Jinping’s refusal to back down on trade (and restrict shipments of China’s rare earths, which American industry depends on). By Putin’s refusal to end the war in Ukraine. By the federal courts pushing back against his immigration policy. And, now, by insults and smears from the richest person in the world, who has a larger social media following than does Trump.

So what does Trump do when he’s humiliated? He deflects public attention. Like any bully, he tries to find another way to display his power — especially over people whom he doesn’t consider “his” people.

He has despised California since the 2016 election when the state overwhelmingly voted against him.

And what better Ground Zero for him to try out his police state than Los Angeles — a city teaming with immigrants, with Hollywood celebrities who demonize him, and wealthy moguls who despise him?

He is calling out the National Guard to provoke violence. As California governor Gavin Newsom said, “that move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.”

Exactly. Trump wants to escalate tensions. He wants a replay of the violence that occurred in the wake of the George Floyd murder — riots, mayhem, and destruction that allow him to escalate his police state further — imposing curfews, closing down parts of Los Angeles, perhaps seeking to subdue the entire state. And beyond.

Please do not give him this. Don’t fall into his trap.

We cannot be silent in the face of Trump’s dictatorial move. But we must not succumb to violence.

What is needed is peaceful civil disobedience. Americans locking arms to protect those who need protection. Americans sitting in the way of armored cars. Americans singing and chanting in the face of the Americans whom Trump is drafting into his handmade civil war.

Americans who do not attempt to strike back, but who do what many of us did during the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements — peacefully but unambiguously reject tyranny.

A humiliated Trump is the most dangerous Trump. But he will overreach. He already has. And this overreach will ultimately be his undoing.

As long as we keep our heads.

May we look back on this hellish time and feel proud of what we did.

Be strong. Be safe. Hug your loved ones.

Robert Reich is a former secretary of labor and professor of public policy at University of California-Berkeley, who served in four presidential administrations of both parties. He is the author of several books and currently writes daily commentary on Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump, CDC, public health threat

Fox News Ignores Trump Bill's Threat To End Health Care For Millions

Fox News has almost entirely ignored the projection that millions of people will lose health insurance if Republicans’ spending bill passes, mentioning the estimated effects of the health insurance cuts just once since a recent Congressional Budget Office report described the consequences. The report estimated that 10.9 million people would be left uninsured due to cuts to Medicaid and changes to the Affordable Care Act.

The majority of insurance losses — 7.8 million — can be attributed to “strict work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks.” The bill is currently being deliberated in the Senate.

Fox News’ overall coverage of the bill has praised these strict work requirements, pushed misinformation on the bill’s price tag, and suggested that only the undeserving will lose health insurance. Fox News host Laura Ingraham glossed over the possibility that millions of people might lose health insurance, suggesting that those who could be kicked off Medicaid are “stay-at-home sons.” Other Fox News personalities claimed Medicaid is not meant for “able-bodied men.” Host Sean Hannity falsely claimed that the CBO projected the legislation would reduce the deficit by $2.5 trillion — while in reality the CBO estimated the bill would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion.

Since the CBO released its report on the projected uninsured on June 4, Fox News mentioned the potential insurance crisis only 1 time, devoting less than 30 seconds of coverage to the news. The Five’s Democratic co-host Jessica Tarlov offered the only mention of the CBO’s projection about the bill’s effect on millions of Americans’ health insurance.

Methodology

Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for either of the terms “Congressional Budget Office” or “CBO” or any of the terms “Trump,” “Big Beautiful Bill,” “budget,” “reconciliation,” or “tax bill” within close proximity of any of the terms “health,” “insurance,” “Affordable Care Act,” “ACA,” “Obamacare,” or “Obama care” or any variation of the term “medica” from June 4, 2025, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its estimated budgetary effects of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, through noon ET June 5, 2025.

We timed segments, which we defined as instances when the CBO's estimate of the budgetary effects of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” with regard to health care enrollment was the stated topic of discussion or when we found significant discussion of the CBO's estimate of the bill’s effects on health care enrollment. We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed the CBO's estimate of the bill’s effects on health care enrollment with one another.

We also timed mentions, which we defined as instances when a speaker mentioned the CBO's estimate of the bill’s effects on health care enrollment without another speaker in the segment engaging with the comment, and teasers, which we defined as instances when the anchor or host promoted a segment about the CBO's estimate of the bill’s effects on health care enrollment scheduled to air later in the broadcast.

We rounded all times to the nearest minute.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World