Tag: trump administration
Now MAGA 'Volk' Want To Deport (Nonwhite) American Citizens

Now MAGA 'Volk' Want To Deport (Nonwhite) American Citizens

Since its inception, the MAGA movement has focused energy on trying to purge the United States of people who do not have legal status in the country. The Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts accelerated this summer after passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, alongside the opening of new migrant detention centers. Now, MAGA media are extending that hostility toward immigrants to take aim at naturalized and native-born citizens in an assault on American identity itself.

Last weekend, MAGA personality Jack Posobiec shared a meme asking Americans what kind of “stock” they are, and suggested that new citizens are somehow less “American” than others. Lest anyone doubt his intent, on Monday morning, he shared it again. (“Foundation stock” is a term used for animal breeding, for what it’s worth.)

The notion of certain Americans being less “American” has escalated in right-wing media in recent months.

In July, The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh launched an attack on Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) for proposing legislation, The Dignity Act, to allow certain undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status. During his tirade, Walsh said Salazar is “not American” and should “go back to Cuba” — a startling claim given that Salazar is an American citizen who was born in the United States.

In a follow-up rant, Walsh doubled down on his attacks and argued that citizenship does not give a person equal claim to American identity “as someone who's lived in the country their entire life, who speaks the language, respects the culture, has ancestral ties to the country and its history."

Salazar is not the first U.S. citizen to have their national identity come under assault in recent months. After winning the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City, Zohran Mamdani was attacked across the right-wing media ecosystem. Many of these smears focused on his Islamic faith or his political views, but some targeted his status as a naturalized citizen. Posobiec said Mamdani is “not an American,” and the Article III Project’s Will Chamberlain wrote: “Denaturalize and deport Zohran Mamdani."

Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh has received similar attacks. Posobiec also claimed Fateh is “not an American,” while Walsh acknowledged that Fateh “was born in America, but he’s not actually an American."

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has long been a target of right-wing media. In April, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said Omar has not “assimilated to America” and is instead trying “to infect the United States of America with her radical, anti-American Mohammadism, amongst her extreme leftist beliefs."

On Newsmax, Mercedes Schlapp attacked another common target for right-wing media, saying “I’m thinking that maybe they should deport Rashida Tlaib."

To put a fine point on the issue, there is a demographic thread that unites Salazar, Mamdani, Fateh, Omar, and Tlaib — they are all non-white citizens. As Kirk’s executive producer and co-host, Andrew Kolvet, declared last month: “Just by stats, by history, yeah, [being] white probably helps be an American.” He then called for an “immigration moratorium” in the United States.

While hostility to undocumented immigrants also characterized President Donald Trump’s first administration, the current racially focused rhetoric on the right has been building for years.

In 2022, an 18-year-old gunman killed 10 people in Buffalo, New York. He left behind a 180-page racist manifesto filled with hateful rants about the “great replacement” conspiracy theory — once relegated to the fringe of online discourse — which argues that white people in the U.S. are being intentionally replaced with non-white foreigners. Three years after the Buffalo attack, claiming “the great replacement is real” is no longer a fringe idea; it’s a bedrock talking point in right-wing media.

This mentality is linked with growing suggestions that the United States is not “a nation of immigrants,” as Fox host Rachel Campos-Duffy argued in July, but “a nation of settlers.” Some personalities are even attacking the Statue of Liberty; Walsh claimed the famous poem at its base, which offered haven to “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” “in no way represents any kind of core American value."

MAGA attacks on Americans’ identities also extend to religion. Kirk said that Islam is “not compatible with Western civilization” and “fundamentally is at odds with the fiber and the DNA of our existence, of our birthright” under the U.S. Constitution, which “cannot coexist with Islam.” Muslims are dangerous, according to Kirk, plotting to “conquer” the United States “whether by sword” or “having a lot of babies.” And this view seemingly extends into the Trump administration, where Christian nationalist figures fill Trump’s religious liberty commission.

In the MAGA consciousness, America is not a melting pot but a homogenous identity, a MAGA “Volk,” and anyone else’s protections of legal immigration status or even citizenship can be removed at any point. This is why we see growing calls from the right for curtailing dual citizenship and demands to end all immigration into the United States. Kirk recently said that “America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that."

It’s not only immigrants and Muslim Americans who right-wing media are seeking to target. For MAGA, Democrats and the left are also incompatible with American identity. Kirk claimed that Democrats “don’t love the United States of America. They are at war with the American republic. There is no appealing to their higher angels. … There’s only the lower demons of the Democrat Party.” Fox’s Jesse Watters accused Democrats of “straight-up treason” over immigration policy. Laura Ingraham suggested Democrats opposing the Trump administration are trying to start an “armed rebellion,” and Newsmax’s Chris Plante asked, “At what point are they to be declared a terrorist organization?"

Manufacturing the friend-enemy distinction through political rhetoric and then enforcing that divide throughout society is an integral aspect of fascism: Those loyal to the regime are considered friends while those opposed are cast into the outer darkness, treated as enemies of the state, traitors, or parasites on the body politic. By calling into question the citizenship of immigrants, Muslims, and anyone who opposes the MAGA ideology, the right’s assault on American identity under the Trump administration is shaping a chilling new reality for our country.

And the MAGA assault on American identity is not just rhetorical — the angry rants on podcasts and social media platforms today could become White House policy tomorrow. Trump has mused about deporting U.S. citizens found guilty of a crime. Right-wing media have likewise campaigned to denaturalize and deport citizens.

“Not everyone in this country is an American,” said Walsh, “even the ones with legal status."

We’re seeing the end result of that mentality now: MAGA media want the Trump administration to target those with legal status next. Charlie Kirk made that clear, connecting all of these threads when he said, “If you're not an American, that's fine. Go back to your place of origin. … Just go back. Hasta la vista. But we have a culture to protect. We have a country to love. No man can serve two masters. Christ our Lord said that. We have a heritage to preserve."

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Trump Biographer: President Worrying Over Epstein Files Release

Trump Biographer: President Worrying Over Epstein Files Release

President Donald Trump's administration is becoming increasingly worried about the ramifications of Congress reviewing documents relating to convicted child predator Jeffrey Epstein.

That's according to New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who reported on the administration's nervousness over the partial release of some of the Epstein files in a Thursday appearance on CNN. Haberman told host Brianna Keilar that Trump's photo-op with law enforcement in Washington D.C. on Thursday night could be viewed as an attempt to distract the media from Friday's release of documents to the House Oversight Committee.

"He is mindful. It is in the back of his mind to try to keep Epstein out of the news," she said. "I think we don't quite know what this is going to look like tomorrow, but he, absolutely, and certainly a lot of his advisers, were happy that Epstein has not been front-and-center as an issue for the last few weeks."

As PBS reported earlier this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is planning on releasing some of the estimated 100,000 pages of Epstein-related files to the Oversight Committee in response to a recent subpoena. The administration has so far not said what would be in the initial release of documents, and it remains unclear whether the committee will make those files publicly available following its review.

ABC News has reported that some of the unreleased evidence categorized by the FBI includes logbooks of visitors to Epstein's "Little Saint James" Island (which housed his private compound) and "a document with names," which could be the rumored "Epstein list" that Attorney General Pam Bondi has publicly insisted does not exist.

When Keilar asked Haberman how the Trump administration was preparing for eventual media coverage surrounding the new documents, the Times reporter said the DOJ knew unfavorable coverage was "sort of baked in for them." Haberman added that the "big question" of whether to share the files with the public still remains open.

"Do they ever turn these files over publicly, which they clearly have the ability to do and just have chosen not to do it, and instead have looked for judges to release grand jury testimony?" Haberman said. "The judges have said [the grand jury records] don't contain some kind of a smoking gun."

"They know what's coming and they have their talking points," she added. "It's just that it's not a topic that any of them enjoy."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Jeff Bezos

The Free Market Op-Ed That Bezos' Washington Post Rejected

The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post recently changed its policies on its op-ed page. It replaced most of its former editorial staff and announced a commitment to promoting the free market and free expression.

Many of us have laughed at these ostensible commitments. The Trump administration is probably the most anti-free market presidency this country has ever seen. A president constantly demanding shows of loyalty from private companies is antithetical to free market capitalism. The commitment to free expression also seems dubious in a country where talking honestly about this country’s past or present can be the basis for firing or even criminal charges.

Anyhow, I have often pointed out that many people who ostensibly believe in the free market are just fine with government-granted patent and copyright monopolies, government interventions that transfer trillions of dollars from the rest of us to those in a position to benefit from these monopolies. I joked that the Washington Post op-ed page probably would not be interested in a piece that argued for a free market, as opposed to these government monopolies.

A friend suggested that I write a piece along these lines and see if the Post would take it. I did and they didn’t:

Time for a Free Market in Prescription Drugs

Advocates of “free markets” usually focus on tariffs and government regulations, but they almost never look at the most costly regulations, patents and copyrights. Incredibly, most discussions turn reality on its head and treat these government-granted monopolies as being part of the free market. Powerful interests benefit from these monopolies, but political power does not change reality; patents and copyrights are massive government interventions into the free market.

These monopolies cause problems everywhere, but nowhere is the harm greater than with prescription drugs. The problem of high-priced prescription drugs is entirely an issue of patent monopolies. Drugs are almost always cheap to manufacture and distribute, the reason why some drugs sell for hundreds or even thousands of dollars per prescription, is that the government has granted a patent monopoly.

The patentholder can go to court to stop any competitors from producing the same drug. If their competitor persists, they will face huge penalties, possibly including jail time.

There is an enormous amount of money at stake with prescription drugs. We will spend over $700 billion this year on prescription drugs and other pharmaceutical products. If these drugs were all sold in a free market, without patent monopolies or related protections, they would likely cost less than one-fifth as much.

The difference of $560 billion comes to $4,400 per household annually. It’s more than the cost of the “Big Beautiful Bill.” It’s even more money than President Trump hopes to raise from his tariffs. It is real money by any standard.

But the money at stake is only part of the story. The huge profits drug companies can make from selling drugs at prices in the hundreds or thousands of dollars per prescription, that cost them $10 or $20 to produce, gives them enormous incentive to mislead doctors and the public about their safety and effectiveness.

The most extreme case of dishonest drug pushing was the opioid crisis. The major manufacturers paid out huge settlements over allegations that they deliberately provided misleading information about the addictiveness of the new generation of opioids.

While opioids are an extreme case, the problem of drug companies providing misleading information about their products is well known. Medical journals have long had to contend with ghost-authored articles, where doctors lend their names to pieces written by a person paid by a pharmaceutical company. Similarly, doctors have often taken payments to give talks at medical conferences praising a company’s drugs. With so much money at stake, there is no easy way around this problem.

Also, drug companies routinely game the system to find ways to extend their monopolies and keep out generic competition. And they spend hundreds of millions on campaign contributions and lobbying Congress to make their patents longer and stronger.

Patent monopolies do serve an obvious purpose. They give drug companies an incentive to conduct research and develop new drugs.

This would be a powerful argument for patents if they were the only way to provide this incentive. However, there are alternatives, most obviously just paying for the research upfront.

We already did this to a large extent. Before the cuts put in place by the Trump administration we were spending over $50 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies. Almost everyone familiar with the research considered this to be money very well spent.

While most of this funding went to support basic research, there is no reason that we could not triple or quadruple the funding to include downstream research. It could pay for the development and testing of new drugs, with all new drugs available to be produced as generics in a free market from the day they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

This would end the problem of high-priced drugs and also eliminate most of the incentive to mislead the public about the safety and effectiveness of drugs. This risk could be further reduced by requiring that all research be fully open source, with all new findings and test results available on the Internet as quickly as practical.

This sort of system of publicly supported research can be sliced and diced in a thousand different ways. Rather than having a single government agency dishing out the funds, there could be private companies, like our current drug companies, that would compete for long-term contracts (e.g. 10-20 years) to undertake research in different areas.

Dean Baker is an economist, author, and co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy and Research. His writing has appeared in many major publications, including The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and The Financial Times.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Danziger Draws

Danziger Draws

Jeff Danziger lives in New York City and Vermont. He is a long time cartoonist for The Rutland Herald and is represented by Counterpoint Syndicate. He is a recipient of the Herblock Prize and the Thomas Nast (Landau) Prize. He served in the US Army in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Air Medal. He has published eleven books of cartoons, a novel and a memoir. Visit him at jeffdanziger.com.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World