Tag: authoritarianism
Trump Administration Demands American Press Propagandize Its Iran War

Trump Administration Demands American Press Propagandize Its Iran War

We are two weeks into President Donald Trump’s ill-conceived war of choice against Iran, and the president is already suggesting his administration should shut down news outlets for producing critical reports — or even consider treason charges based on spurious claims of collusion with America’s enemies.

Though U.S. and Israeli forces have successfully bombed a wide array of Iranian targets and assassinated its former supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran has followed through with its strategic doctrine by closing the Strait of Hormuz, shutting down a major channel for the global energy and fertilizer trades.

As a result, Trump is begging/demanding foreign navies bail him out by sending ships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, deploying additional troops and ships to the region for unknown reasons, lifting sanctions on Russia in hopes of lowering the price of oil, denying reports that a Pentagon investigation preliminarily found the U.S. military accidentally incinerated scores of Iranian schoolchildren with an errant missile — and railing against the American press for refusing to report that the war is going well.

Meanwhile, Trump’s hand-picked Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, is signaling to broadcast stations that they will face regulatory retribution if they don’t “correct course."

It’s all part of the authoritarian playbook Trump wields against news outlets that produce anything less than Fox News-style propaganda. The protections of the First Amendment ensure that those outlets could likely prevail in court — but fighting is expensive, and over the course of Trump’s second term so far, the corporate moguls who control them have proven unnervingly unwilling to do so.

Trump rails against press, demands government retribution

Last week, former Fox News host Megyn Kelly bemoaned that the network’s coverage is offering lockstep support for Trump’s Iranian “excursion.”

“Now it's, you cheerlead the war, support the military industrial complex, or … you're a loser,” she said on her podcast. “It's infuriating because we're talking about life and death. We're talking about American life or death. And this is a dereliction of duty.”

As Kelly suggests, when Trump turns his television to Fox, he is getting unhinged validation of his efforts. But the president is not satisfied with that. He wants every American news outlet producing the same Fox-style war propaganda.

Trump used what he baselessly described as “an intentionally misleading headline by the Fake News Media” to denounce the press in a Saturday morning Truth Social post.“The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (in particular), and other Lowlife 'Papers’ and Media actually want us to lose the War,” he wrote. “Their terrible reporting is the exact opposite of the actual facts! They are truly sick and demented people that have no idea the damage they cause the United States of America.”

In another post on Sunday evening, the president baselessly claimed that Iran had been “working in close coordination with the Fake News Media” to promote a fake, AI-generated video depicting a U.S. ship burning in the Persian Gulf.

“The story was knowingly FAKE and, in a certain way, you can say that those Media Outlets that generated it should be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information!” Trump posted. “The fact is, Iran is being decimated, and the only battles they ‘win’ are those that they create through AI, and are distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets.”

(In reality, responsible news outlets have been debunking that video, not distributing it, according to CNN’s Brian Stelter.)

“It's pretty criminal because our media companies, who have no credibility whatsoever, are putting out information that they know is false, and it's a very dangerous thing for the country,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One later that night, “I think they could be in serious jeopardy."

Trump’s weekend anti-press binge followed coverage complaints from Pete Hegseth, the former Fox & Friends weekend host who now heads the Pentagon, who used a press conference on Friday morning to gripe extensively about the banners he has seen on TV news coverage:

Yet some in this crew, in the press, just can't stop. Allow me to make a few suggestions. People look up at the TV and they see banners, they see headlines. I used to be in that business. And I know that everything is written intentionally.

For example, a banner or a headline: “Mideast war intensifies,” splashing on the screen the last couple of days, alongside visuals of civilian or energy targets that Iran has hit, because that's what they do. What should the banner read instead?

How about, ‘Iran increasingly desperate,’ because they are. They know it and so do you, if it can be admitted.

Hegseth posited that an “actual patriotic press” would produce such coverage. He also decried a CNN report detailing how the Trump administration “failed to fully account for the potential consequences” of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz. “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” he commented, referencing a Trump ally’s effort to take over CNN’s parent company with the help of the administration.

With Carr, a cause for alarm

It is disturbing enough that the president of the United States is a deranged authoritarian who responds to a faltering war by ranting about its coverage. But what makes it worse is that his administration is filled with apparatchicks eager to carry out his demands for retribution.

Carr, who was reportedly with the president at his Mar-A-Lago club over the weekend, responded to Trump’s initial post complaining about journalists who “actually want us to lose the War” by threatening the licenses of broadcast stations that produce critical coverage.

“Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions - also known as the fake news - have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,” Carr wrote. “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not."

Carr was nonspecific about how broadcasters could avoid reprisal (and Trump had lashed out at newspapers, not broadcast networks, in his post), but he’s a hack who is typically willing to carry Trump’s water no matter how absurd the underlying complaint may be.

Trump signaled his approval for Carr’s threats in his Sunday evening “TREASON” post, writing, “I am so thrilled to see Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), looking at the licenses of some of these Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic ‘News’ Organizations."

Stelter, in an extensive report drawing on comments from First Amendment lawyers, notes that Carr “has very little power to follow through” and that television stations, if they are willing to fight such attempted reprisals in court, “are not at serious risk of being banned."

“Any government action against a licensee would cause a protracted legal battle, even more so given the current media-bashing climate, because a station would likely cite Trump’s retributive streak and mount a First Amendment case,” Stelter wrote.

There is a strong argument that stations would be victorious if they fought Carr’s attempts to strip their licenses. But there were also strong arguments that ABC News and CBS News would be victorious if they fought the lawsuits Trump filed over their coverage in 2024. The problem was that rather than going to court on behalf of a free press, Disney and Paramount, their parent companies, decided it was in the interest of their broader business holdings to fold.

The advantage Trump and Carr have in their fight to cudgel the press into line is that it can be very expensive to fight the federal government on behalf of the First Amendment — and what the last year shows is that many people who own or control news outlets don’t care enough about such principles to do it. And Disney and Paramount had much deeper pockets to pay lawyers than an individual local broadcast news station does. Even Sinclair Broadcast Network, which owns or operates nearly 200 stations across the country, has a market cap of around $1 billion, compared to roughly $175 billion for Disney.

If Carr threatens the licenses of Sinclair stations, are its pro-Trump owners really going to go to the mat for the free press rather than using his complaints as an opportunity to push coverage even further to the right?

It’s also worth taking seriously Trump’s threats of treason charges against news outlets. The Justice Department is now staffed by loyalists like former Fox host Jeanine Pirro who are willing to follow through on his demands for political prosecutions. Those efforts keep failing — but they raise the cost of dissent and thus chill free speech.

And that’s what the president wants, as Fox & Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt made clear when she channeled him on Monday morning.

“The president has said enough with this coverage from other networks that are not telling you the truth, that are so negative about what’s going on,” she said. “This is a pro-America fight, and every network needs to get on board with that."

And if they aren’t, there will be consequences.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Murder For Christmas? Hegseth And Trump Violate Decency, Morality And Law

Murder For Christmas? Hegseth And Trump Violate Decency, Morality And Law

When Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted a meme of Franklin the Turtle, the amiable child's cartoon character, in a helicopter using a military weapon to kill people in a small boat below him, and captioned it "For your Christmas wish list," it understandably caused an uproar.

Should the secretary of defense be mocking the people his troops have killed? Should he engage a child's cartoon character to produce this mockery? Should anyone in his right mind, who professes to understand Christianity, suggest that this killing should be on a child's Christmas wish list? Should he be killing nonviolent boatpeople?

Here is the back story.

President Donald Trump has ordered the Department of Defense to annihilate persons in speedboats in the Caribbean Sea, 1,500 miles from the United States and elsewhere. The true targets of these killings are not the boats but the persons in the boats. We know this because the president has stated so, and because in a particularly gruesome event, two survivors of an initial attack on September 2, 2025, who were clinging to the broken remains of their boat hoping to be rescued, were hit with a second attack, which obliterated them.

Based on evidence he says he has and chooses not to share, Trump has designated these folks in the speedboats as "narco-terrorists" and argued that his designation offers him legal authority to kill them. But "narco-terrorist" is a political phrase, not a legal one. There is no such designation or defined term in American law. Labeling them confers no additional legal authority.

Lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice who advise the attorney general on the meaning of the law have apparently authored a legal opinion informing her that she can tell the president what he wants to hear; that it is lawful to kill these boatpeople. This is the same office that told President George W. Bush that he could legally torture prisoners and President Barack Obama that he could legally kill unindicted Americans — including a child — overseas.

Neither the president nor the attorney general will produce this legal opinion for public scrutiny.

These killings constitute murder under federal law and under international law, and persons who use the force of government to commit murder may themselves be prosecuted for it in U.S. courts, courts of the countries from which their victims came, and in international courts. These killings constitute murder because none of the 81 dead boatpeople was engaged in any violence at the times of their deaths.

It doesn't matter, Trump has claimed, just look at the numbers of drug deaths in the U.S., they are "way down." Does the president believe that murder is justified by a diminution in drug deaths? Drug distribution is not a capital offence. If the police see a nonviolent person distributing dangerous drugs in an American city, can they summarily kill that person? Of course not.

Outside of a legally declared war in which U.S. military personnel are engaged in legally killing armed military personnel of the country with which the U.S. is at war, the Constitution requires due process — a fair jury trial with its attendant protections — whenever the government wants to take life, liberty or property from any person.

The controversy over Trump's killings was rubbed raw recently when six members of Congress — all military or intelligence community veterans — produced a video making accurate statements in which they advised members of the military that they are required to disobey illegal orders. The six declined to back down when the president accused them of sedition and treason and threatened them with death.

Sedition is the advocacy of violence intended to overthrow the federal government. Treason is waging war against the United States or providing aid and comfort to those doing so. Neither crime is even remotely implicated by the video. The video is protected speech which accurately reflects the law.Trump was unclear if by "death" he meant the DOJ would charge the six with a capital crime and seek the death penalty, or he'd just order the DOD to murder them.

Unfortunately, none of the six was willing to finish the debate they started and state just what illegal orders should be disobeyed. They know that an order to kill an unarmed civilian is an illegal order. It is an order to commit murder, and it ought to be disobeyed. A child can tell you this from her heart.

It gets worse.

The Washington Post reported that seven sources — seven — informed its reporters that when military personnel saw two boat survivors floating at sea, they asked the chain of command what to do. Under the law, the military had a duty to rescue the folks they tried and failed to murder.

These seven persons have corroborated that Hegseth verbally ordered that the two survivors be killed — an order he denies having given, but which the White House has confirmed, laughably calling it "self-defense." That's when Hegseth posted his macabre, revolting, anti-Christian suggestion of murder for Christmas.

What's going on here?

Both President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have taken an oath to preserve the Constitution of the United States. In their unbridled zeal to rid the country of illicit drugs — not a military responsibility — they have rejected the words and values of the Constitution and assumed to themselves powers that international law, federal laws, state laws and the natural law all expressly forbid — the knowing extrajudicial homicide of nonviolent persons.

But they are not the only culprits here. Where is the Congress to reign in a president who ignores well-settled constitutional norms and his quick-draw defense secretary who calls rules of engagement "stupid"? Where is the public outrage? Does the government not recognize any constitutional or legal limits on its powers?

Judge Andrew Napolitano formerly sat on the New Jersey Superior Court and was a longtime legal affairs commentator for Fox News. He has written several books and many articles for both scholarly and popular publications.

Reprinted with permission from Creators


'Indication Of Dictatorship': Retired National Guard General Denounces Trump Deployment

'Indication Of Dictatorship': Retired National Guard General Denounces Trump Deployment

Former National Guard Vice Chief Major General Randy E. Manner strongly criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to U.S. cities, saying it is a "full indication of dictatorship and intimidation in the use of the military."

During an appearance on CNN Wednesday, Manner compared the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials conducting raids across the country to the Gestapo of 1930s Germany, adding that they "act like a mob."

The retired major general went on to say that the administration is “trying to create false flags" in which ICE agents are killed so it can secure a pretext to expand its use of the military.

Manner also observed that National Guard troops are different from ICE agents.

"They cover their faces. They want anonymity. They look like a bunch of Proud Boys," he said of ICE officials, but he added that the National Guard troops "are not undisciplined thugs."

"They are your sons and daughters in uniform, and you should treat them that way," he said of the National Guard.

President Donald Trump has escalated deployment of federalized National Guard troops in multiple U.S. cities under the guise of curbing “crime,” even as state and local leaders (from Illinois to Oregon and D.C.) have filed legal challenges arguing these moves violate the Constitution, the Posse Comitatus Act, and states’ sovereignty.

Earlier on Wednesday, NBC reported that White House advisers are now seriously weighing whether Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act — an obscure law from the early 1800s that permits the use of active-duty military troops within U.S. borders for law enforcement duties.

'The Epitome Of Dumbness': Trump Attack On Smithsonian Is An Embarrassment

'The Epitome Of Dumbness': Trump Attack On Smithsonian Is An Embarrassment

Some headlines are just too stupid to pass by. Yes, this is the Trump era, and Trump being Trump and all that. But even so, there should be some things a president doesn't say — or do. This is one.

"Trump Says Smithsonian Focuses Too Much on 'How Bad Slavery Was,'" The New York Times screamed. Yes, he really said that.

In a post on social media on Tuesday, Trump wrote:

"The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE. We have the 'HOTTEST' Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it, including in our Museums."

Too much on how bad slavery was? Was it better than we think? Did it not cause a civil war? Are museums supposed to show us what we need to know about our history or what Donald Trump and his white nationalist friends would like to hear?

The social media post comes a week after the Trump administration warned the Smithsonian that its museums must, within 120 days, adjust any content that the administration finds problematic in "tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals." In his social media post, Trump said that he had instructed his lawyers "to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities."

Could it be any worse? Do to the Smithsonian what he has done, and is doing, to America's leading educational institutions? Strip them of their independence, of their academic freedom and integrity, in the name of fighting antisemitism. As the Jewish faculty of UCLA has rightly stood up and said, "No, thanks." And double, "No, thanks" to whitewashing our history. What message does that send to a Black schoolchild who visits the museum?

"It's the epitome of dumbness to criticize the Smithsonian for dealing with the reality of slavery in America," Douglas Brinkley, one of America's most respected presidential historians, told The New York Times. "It's what led to our Civil War and is a defining aspect of our national history. And the Smithsonian deals in a robust way with what slavery was, but it also deals with human rights and civil rights in equal abundance."

The "epitome of dumbness." Trump has been there before. The effort to whitewash our history extends to other stupid things this administration and this president have done, from minimizing the contributions of Black heroes, including the Tuskegee Airmen who fought in World War II and Harriet Tubman, who led Blacks to freedom on the Underground Railroad, to advocating the return of Confederate insignia and statues honoring those who fought to preserve slavery. On Juneteenth, the celebration of the end of slavery in the United States that became a federal holiday in 2021, Trump "celebrated" by complaining that there were too many non-working holidays in America.

From the halls of the Smithsonian to the streets of Los Angeles, Donald Trump's war on diversity, equity and inclusion has morphed into a war on Black and Brown people. He makes no bones about it. He is playing to the white nationalist fringe of his MAGA movement, and it is not just dumb but ugly. And racist. The Smithsonian needs to resist, and to fight back, and it needs Congress' support, and the public's, to do so.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World