Sunday, July 27, 2025

Where Do WE Go From Here ?

..... Opinion. 

We have President Donald Trump on the run. He is desperately playing defense by lashing out in every direction, especially with his absurd demands to arrest Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama.

Make no mistake. Team Trump is still strong, with its MAGA core of some 38% of the electorate. Going by Census statistics of registered voters, that’s about 66 million out of 174 million. That’s considerable clout, considering its spread across key battleground states that can offer 270 Electoral College votes. Kamala Harris narrowly won the popular vote, roughly 51 percent to Trump’s 49 percent—but not by margins big enough in the key states.

Voter turnout is important, and the last election’s numbers indicate that a sizable, if not a majority, of latent antifascist voters are out there. We can note that the left-progressive bloc in Congress consists of the 100 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. While Bernie is the only Senator in the CPC, about three other Senators vote consistently with him and the CPC.

These numbers indicate that so far, the left progressive bloc has about 20% of the House and 5% of the Senate. This amounts to a good toehold, but it’s also something we can develop and deploy. All of this group, if not members of the left themselves, will listen to the left’s arguments as important to their futures. What requires further study is how this political grouping might be replicated at the state, county, and city levels.

We know, for example, that DSA holds several seats in the city councils of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. A Pittsburgh DSAer leads the Allegheny County government, and Pittsburgh’s Summer Lee is a vital part of ‘The Squad.’

However, progressive electoral seats and campaigns primarily gain influence when linked to grassroots organizations and their insurgencies. Considering that the 50501 protests so far have engaged some 10 million people, and thus they would also comprise about 7% of the overall electorate. More importantly, they are more than a statistic. They are the ‘Energizer bunnies’ that reach even wider circles in both electoral and non-electoral arenas of struggle.

This number of activists is also beyond the 3.5% rule formulated by political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, in their 2011 book, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. Once more than 3.5 percent of a population engages in sustained protests and civil disobedience, they influence far wider circles, awakening a majority that can compel ‘regime change.’

We are approaching that point today. However, we are not the only team of players on the field. MAGA has similar clout, and even with its weakening current battles with Trump over the Epstein scandals, it also still poses a darker form of regime change. The American political landscape is thus entering another turbulent era, the decline of Trump’s influence—once formidable and seemingly unassailable—demanding scrutiny far deeper than mere campaign drama. The unraveling of his political hegemony emerges not from a single cause but through a confluence of right-wing scandals, burgeoning left-wing protest movements—exemplified by the “50501” demonstrations—and the shifting sands of local elections. 

To understand the underlying currents, Antonio Gramsci’s concepts of “war of position” and “war of movement” provide a profound framework for interpreting these phenomena.

Among many other ideas, Gramsci posited two general theories of political battle, drawn from his overview of WWI battlegrounds. One is the ‘War of Position,’ a protracted engagement between trenches, which in turn were supported by supply lines for recruits and ammunition stretching back to the war supply industries of the homeland. The other is the ‘War of Movement,’ when concentrated minorities at the front are ordered to go ‘over the top’ to make a seizure for a new breakthrough. We can see this being played out in the war in Ukraine today. In Gramsci’s time, it was seen positively in the case of the Bolsheviks ‘storming the Winter Palace’ and dispersing the old government with soldiers from the Soviets. It was even relatively nonviolent for the moment.

It is essential to view these two ‘Wars’ as interlinked, i.e., we engage with both simultaneously. But both are also different. Strategically, as the numbers above reveal, we are still in a defensive ‘war of position’ with the MAGA forces over strong points of political power, where we seemingly gain inch by inch. But at the same time, tactically, we can wage ‘wars of movement.’ These are our 50501 protests, especially those aimed at stopping the war in Gaza alongside the battles at home with ICE and its mass deportations.

But why is Trump in such deep trouble? We note that his political persona was constructed on a foundation of disruption, defiance, and dominance over traditional Republican elites. Yet, scandals—once brushed off as evidence of his authenticity or the cost of “fighting the system”—now gnaw at the core of his support. The right’s coalition, already fragile after years of transactional loyalty, faces a legitimacy crisis as legal cases, ethical controversies, and internal dissent mount. Each new revelation does not merely chip away at Trump’s armor but reverberates through the institutions, donors, and activists who once rode the Trumpist wave.

Gramsci’s “war of position” aptly describes this phase: the slow, cumulative erosion of Trump’s ideological stronghold. In contrast to a frontal assault (“war of movement”), the war of position is a drawn-out struggle within civil society, where culture, values, and legitimacy are contested. The right’s scandals have become battlegrounds, inviting not just legal scrutiny but a struggle over the meaning of conservatism itself. Figures once unwavering now hedge their bets; media outlets once sycophantic begin to ask difficult questions. The scaffolding that held up Trump’s dominance starts to creak under the weight of accumulated contradictions.

As noted above, the top scandal of the day is Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Here, the left must tread very carefully. For years, Trump fueled a conspiracy theory of a decadent ruling class cabal at the top, bipartisan but including the Clintons, that was kidnapping young children for sexual abuse and worse. The most absurd piece of it was ‘Pizzagate,’ where a DC pizza parlor supposedly contained an underground torture chamber for captured kids. Elite evildoers would get access to them by ordering certain kinds of ‘pizza.’ One right-wing ‘lone ranger’ who acted on the conspiracy theory, Edgar Maddison Welch, fired shots inside the restaurant in December 2016, but fortunately, no one was injured. It turned out the pizza place had no basement, and was not involved in ‘grooming’ kids or any other offense. It was a total hoax promoted by the Q-Anon web project. However, Welch himself was later killed in an encounter with police. In January 2025, during a traffic stop in North Carolina, Welch pulled out a handgun and refused commands to drop the weapon. He was then shot by two officers and died from his injuries two days later. 

Despite the Q-Anon absurdities in this case, we must consider exactly why this conspiracy is of such concern among the far right. The answer is how it reflects the older anti-Semitic stories pushed by Henry Ford and others in the 1930s. There, the Elders of Zion, a secret global network of rich Jews, conspired with decadent elites to capture children for their blood, sexual abuse, and other tortures, killing them. The story was utterly false, concocted by a Tsarist police agent.

Now, fast-forward to the present day. Does the U.S. have decadent elites at the top? Certainly. Among other things, are they interested in access to underage girls for rape and sexual abuse? Undoubtedly. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s companion and procurer, was found guilty of these charges and sits in prison. Were individual Jews involved? Yes, Epstein was Jewish, as was Maxwell and her ultrarich father. Epstein met with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak multiple times, but so far, there is no proof he was a Mossad agent or a CIA operative. With Epstein’s suspicious death in prison, we will likely never know about certain matters with any degree of credibility.

But there’s one thing we can be certain about. Despite the slimy and sleazeball escapades of those flying the ‘Lolita Express’ to Epstein’s private island of underage girls and boys--all of which are bad and criminal enough-- we are not going to find a 21st-century ‘Elders of Zion’ cabal aiming to take over the world. The same crew promoting this concoction also uses the billionaire George Soros, a Hungarian Jew, on the progressive side of the spectrum. Soros utilizes philanthropy to promote worthy causes, including the ‘Better Boys Foundation,’ which aims to support and provide resources for inner-city youth. Whenever the far right uses his name, it’s a dog whistle for the Elders of Zion on the left. But currently, their whistles are tearing apart Trump’s MAGA base on the right, some of whom want no part of anti-Semitism, even if others do. In any case, it remains important that we address this deftly, without fanning the anti-Semitic flames.

What should focus our attention today is an upcoming third round of “50501” protests, with August 1 and 2 designated for ‘Rage Against The Machine’actions—an emblem for mass mobilization mainly aimed at the vast expansion of ICE facilities and groups of masked and black-clad unidentified operatives seizing people on the streets, at work, or at home.

If done well, these protests, so far marked by vast numbers, disciplined organization, and a savvy use of social media, represent more than mere outpourings of dissent. They are calculated offensives: they will represent critical flashpoints where the “war of movement” might break through the inertia of the status quo.

As noted, Gramsci distinguished the war of position—slow and strategic, waged within institutions and culture—from the war of movement—a rapid, direct challenge to state power and entrenched authorities. The 50501 protests, by their very scale and frequency, signify a growing confidence on the left that the time for merely accumulating small victories alone has passed. Instead, there is a sense that new alignments are possible, and that the ground itself might shift under the feet of the old order.

The movement’s demands vary—whether against ICE and deportations, against genocide in Gaza, for racial justice, climate action, or economic equity—have not only rattled the political center. They have also compelled local and national leaders to respond in real-time. These are not just symbolic clashes; they are moments when the fabric of civil society is rethreaded, and new hegemonies are forged.

The point is that while national spectacles dominate the headlines, the seismic shifts of American politics often occur in the quiet, granular precincts of local elections. Here, Gramsci’s war of position is perhaps most potent. City councils, school boards, district attorneys—these are battlegrounds where the left and right both wage protracted campaigns to secure footholds in public life.

The fallout from Trumpian scandals and the ascendancy of protest movements have filtered down into these contests. Candidates who embrace Trump’s style and rhetoric increasingly find their appeals less resonant, especially in suburban districts and among younger voters. Conversely, protest-inspired candidates—often propelled to prominence by grassroots mobilization—are finding unexpected success. The result is a reconfiguration of local coalitions, policies, and norms.

Local elections also serve as laboratories for new strategies. From voter mobilization to digital outreach, both sides experiment with methods that may later be scaled up to national contests. And as the old guard loses its grip, fresh faces—diverse, bold, and unapologetic—step into the political arena.

Crucially, Gramsci reminds us that these wars are not strictly sequential or exclusive. The war of position and war of movement intertwine, each preparing the ground for the other. The right’s scandals weaken its cultural and moral authority, making it vulnerable to direct challenge. The left’s movements, energized by their own successes, are increasingly adept at turning local victories into national momentum.

We know Trump’s decline does not guarantee the left’s triumph, nor do the scandals of the right inevitably lead to renewal. The American political system remains robustly pluralistic, resistant to easy capture by any single force. As Gramsci warned, the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

If Gramsci’s analysis offers any prescription, it is this: political change is not just a contest of wills but a struggle for hearts, minds, and institutions. The war of position and war of movement must be carefully calibrated, neither neglected nor prematurely forced. For the left, the challenge is to sustain its momentum without burning out, to adjust to ebb and flow, to translate protest into policy, and to recognize that real victory depends not only on winning elections for governing power, but on reshaping the common sense of society.

This requires a new narrative. A good start is the one formulated by the Rev. Barber for a ‘fusion politics’ for a Third Reconstruction. The true war—over the meaning of abolition democracy, justice, a solidarity economy and the future—will be fought not just in the streets or the headlines, but in the patient, persistent work of building coalitions, telling new stories, and imagining what comes next Every one of us has a role, and the war—of position, of movement, of ideas—is far from over.

Carl Davidson 

Carl’s LeftLinks Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

We have President Donald Trump on the run. He is desperately playing defense by lashing out in every direction, especially with his absurd demands to arrest Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama.

Make no mistake. Team Trump is still strong, with its MAGA core of some 38% of the electorate. Going by Census statistics of registered voters, that’s about 66 million out of 174 million. That’s considerable clout, considering its spread across key battleground states that can offer 270 Electoral College votes. Kamala Harris narrowly won the popular vote, roughly 51 percent to Trump’s 49 percent—but not by margins big enough in the key states.

Voter turnout is important, and the last election’s numbers indicate that a sizable, if not a majority, of latent antifascist voters are out there. We can note that the left-progressive bloc in Congress consists of the 100 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. While Bernie is the only Senator in the CPC, about three other Senators vote consistently with him and the CPC.

These numbers indicate that so far, the left progressive bloc has about 20% of the House and 5% of the Senate. This amounts to a good toehold, but it’s also something we can develop and deploy. All of this group, if not members of the left themselves, will listen to the left’s arguments as important to their futures. What requires further study is how this political grouping might be replicated at the state, county, and city levels.

We know, for example, that DSA holds several seats in the city councils of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. A Pittsburgh DSAer leads the Allegheny County government, and Pittsburgh’s Summer Lee is a vital part of ‘The Squad.’

However, progressive electoral seats and campaigns primarily gain influence when linked to grassroots organizations and their insurgencies. Considering that the 50501 protests so far have engaged some 10 million people, and thus they would also comprise about 7% of the overall electorate. More importantly, they are more than a statistic. They are the ‘Energizer bunnies’ that reach even wider circles in both electoral and non-electoral arenas of struggle.

This number of activists is also beyond the 3.5% rule formulated by political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, in their 2011 book, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. Once more than 3.5 percent of a population engages in sustained protests and civil disobedience, they influence far wider circles, awakening a majority that can compel ‘regime change.’

We are approaching that point today. However, we are not the only team of players on the field. MAGA has similar clout, and even with its weakening current battles with Trump over the Epstein scandals, it also still poses a darker form of regime change. The American political landscape is thus entering another turbulent era, the decline of Trump’s influence—once formidable and seemingly unassailable—demanding scrutiny far deeper than mere campaign drama. The unraveling of his political hegemony emerges not from a single cause but through a confluence of right-wing scandals, burgeoning left-wing protest movements—exemplified by the “50501” demonstrations—and the shifting sands of local elections. 

To understand the underlying currents, Antonio Gramsci’s concepts of “war of position” and “war of movement” provide a profound framework for interpreting these phenomena.

Among many other ideas, Gramsci posited two general theories of political battle, drawn from his overview of WWI battlegrounds. One is the ‘War of Position,’ a protracted engagement between trenches, which in turn were supported by supply lines for recruits and ammunition stretching back to the war supply industries of the homeland. The other is the ‘War of Movement,’ when concentrated minorities at the front are ordered to go ‘over the top’ to make a seizure for a new breakthrough. We can see this being played out in the war in Ukraine today. In Gramsci’s time, it was seen positively in the case of the Bolsheviks ‘storming the Winter Palace’ and dispersing the old government with soldiers from the Soviets. It was even relatively nonviolent for the moment.

It is essential to view these two ‘Wars’ as interlinked, i.e., we engage with both simultaneously. But both are also different. Strategically, as the numbers above reveal, we are still in a defensive ‘war of position’ with the MAGA forces over strong points of political power, where we seemingly gain inch by inch. But at the same time, tactically, we can wage ‘wars of movement.’ These are our 50501 protests, especially those aimed at stopping the war in Gaza alongside the battles at home with ICE and its mass deportations.

But why is Trump in such deep trouble? We note that his political persona was constructed on a foundation of disruption, defiance, and dominance over traditional Republican elites. Yet, scandals—once brushed off as evidence of his authenticity or the cost of “fighting the system”—now gnaw at the core of his support. The right’s coalition, already fragile after years of transactional loyalty, faces a legitimacy crisis as legal cases, ethical controversies, and internal dissent mount. Each new revelation does not merely chip away at Trump’s armor but reverberates through the institutions, donors, and activists who once rode the Trumpist wave.

Gramsci’s “war of position” aptly describes this phase: the slow, cumulative erosion of Trump’s ideological stronghold. In contrast to a frontal assault (“war of movement”), the war of position is a drawn-out struggle within civil society, where culture, values, and legitimacy are contested. The right’s scandals have become battlegrounds, inviting not just legal scrutiny but a struggle over the meaning of conservatism itself. Figures once unwavering now hedge their bets; media outlets once sycophantic begin to ask difficult questions. The scaffolding that held up Trump’s dominance starts to creak under the weight of accumulated contradictions.

As noted above, the top scandal of the day is Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Here, the left must tread very carefully. For years, Trump fueled a conspiracy theory of a decadent ruling class cabal at the top, bipartisan but including the Clintons, that was kidnapping young children for sexual abuse and worse. The most absurd piece of it was ‘Pizzagate,’ where a DC pizza parlor supposedly contained an underground torture chamber for captured kids. Elite evildoers would get access to them by ordering certain kinds of ‘pizza.’ One right-wing ‘lone ranger’ who acted on the conspiracy theory, Edgar Maddison Welch, fired shots inside the restaurant in December 2016, but fortunately, no one was injured. It turned out the pizza place had no basement, and was not involved in ‘grooming’ kids or any other offense. It was a total hoax promoted by the Q-Anon web project. However, Welch himself was later killed in an encounter with police. In January 2025, during a traffic stop in North Carolina, Welch pulled out a handgun and refused commands to drop the weapon. He was then shot by two officers and died from his injuries two days later. 

Despite the Q-Anon absurdities in this case, we must consider exactly why this conspiracy is of such concern among the far right. The answer is how it reflects the older anti-Semitic stories pushed by Henry Ford and others in the 1930s. There, the Elders of Zion, a secret global network of rich Jews, conspired with decadent elites to capture children for their blood, sexual abuse, and other tortures, killing them. The story was utterly false, concocted by a Tsarist police agent.

Now, fast-forward to the present day. Does the U.S. have decadent elites at the top? Certainly. Among other things, are they interested in access to underage girls for rape and sexual abuse? Undoubtedly. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s companion and procurer, was found guilty of these charges and sits in prison. Were individual Jews involved? Yes, Epstein was Jewish, as was Maxwell and her ultrarich father. Epstein met with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak multiple times, but so far, there is no proof he was a Mossad agent or a CIA operative. With Epstein’s suspicious death in prison, we will likely never know about certain matters with any degree of credibility.

But there’s one thing we can be certain about. Despite the slimy and sleazeball escapades of those flying the ‘Lolita Express’ to Epstein’s private island of underage girls and boys--all of which are bad and criminal enough-- we are not going to find a 21st-century ‘Elders of Zion’ cabal aiming to take over the world. The same crew promoting this concoction also uses the billionaire George Soros, a Hungarian Jew, on the progressive side of the spectrum. Soros utilizes philanthropy to promote worthy causes, including the ‘Better Boys Foundation,’ which aims to support and provide resources for inner-city youth. Whenever the far right uses his name, it’s a dog whistle for the Elders of Zion on the left. But currently, their whistles are tearing apart Trump’s MAGA base on the right, some of whom want no part of anti-Semitism, even if others do. In any case, it remains important that we address this deftly, without fanning the anti-Semitic flames.

What should focus our attention today is an upcoming third round of “50501” protests, with August 1 and 2 designated for ‘Rage Against The Machine’actions—an emblem for mass mobilization mainly aimed at the vast expansion of ICE facilities and groups of masked and black-clad unidentified operatives seizing people on the streets, at work, or at home.

If done well, these protests, so far marked by vast numbers, disciplined organization, and a savvy use of social media, represent more than mere outpourings of dissent. They are calculated offensives: they will represent critical flashpoints where the “war of movement” might break through the inertia of the status quo.

As noted, Gramsci distinguished the war of position—slow and strategic, waged within institutions and culture—from the war of movement—a rapid, direct challenge to state power and entrenched authorities. The 50501 protests, by their very scale and frequency, signify a growing confidence on the left that the time for merely accumulating small victories alone has passed. Instead, there is a sense that new alignments are possible, and that the ground itself might shift under the feet of the old order.

The movement’s demands vary—whether against ICE and deportations, against genocide in Gaza, for racial justice, climate action, or economic equity—have not only rattled the political center. They have also compelled local and national leaders to respond in real-time. These are not just symbolic clashes; they are moments when the fabric of civil society is rethreaded, and new hegemonies are forged.

The point is that while national spectacles dominate the headlines, the seismic shifts of American politics often occur in the quiet, granular precincts of local elections. Here, Gramsci’s war of position is perhaps most potent. City councils, school boards, district attorneys—these are battlegrounds where the left and right both wage protracted campaigns to secure footholds in public life.

The fallout from Trumpian scandals and the ascendancy of protest movements have filtered down into these contests. Candidates who embrace Trump’s style and rhetoric increasingly find their appeals less resonant, especially in suburban districts and among younger voters. Conversely, protest-inspired candidates—often propelled to prominence by grassroots mobilization—are finding unexpected success. The result is a reconfiguration of local coalitions, policies, and norms.

Local elections also serve as laboratories for new strategies. From voter mobilization to digital outreach, both sides experiment with methods that may later be scaled up to national contests. And as the old guard loses its grip, fresh faces—diverse, bold, and unapologetic—step into the political arena.

Crucially, Gramsci reminds us that these wars are not strictly sequential or exclusive. The war of position and war of movement intertwine, each preparing the ground for the other. The right’s scandals weaken its cultural and moral authority, making it vulnerable to direct challenge. The left’s movements, energized by their own successes, are increasingly adept at turning local victories into national momentum.

We know Trump’s decline does not guarantee the left’s triumph, nor do the scandals of the right inevitably lead to renewal. The American political system remains robustly pluralistic, resistant to easy capture by any single force. As Gramsci warned, the crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born. In this interregnum, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

If Gramsci’s analysis offers any prescription, it is this: political change is not just a contest of wills but a struggle for hearts, minds, and institutions. The war of position and war of movement must be carefully calibrated, neither neglected nor prematurely forced. For the left, the challenge is to sustain its momentum without burning out, to adjust to ebb and flow, to translate protest into policy, and to recognize that real victory depends not only on winning elections for governing power, but on reshaping the common sense of society.

This requires a new narrative. A good start is the one formulated by the Rev. Barber for a ‘fusion politics’ for a Third Reconstruction. The true war—over the meaning of abolition democracy, justice, a solidarity economy and the future—will be fought not just in the streets or the headlines, but in the patient, persistent work of building coalitions, telling new stories, and imagining what comes next Every one of us has a role, and the war—of position, of movement, of ideas—is far from over.

Carl’s LeftLinks Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

CBS Participates in the Consolidation of fascism in the U.S. They Must Be Stopped

CBS is participating in the consolidation of fascism in the U.S.

https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5454790/cbs-settlement-trump-60-minutes-harris-interview-analysis

Now, CBS has closed down Colbert, the late show.

https://prospect.org/culture/2025-07-23-canceling-colbert-begins-end-of-television

 

These are classic steps in the consolidation of fascism.  Get some super rich to assist the consolidation by promising the profitable deals. 

We, the resistance , must respond.  We must force CBS to rejoin the free press.  If not, their example will be followed by hundreds of smaller stations, networks, etc. 

The consolidation of media power leads to losing elections and losing our freedoms. 

Has anyone seen a significant explanation, or a realistic proposal for resistance ? Please share. 

As I argued last October when DSA national basically sat out the election;

If we don’t fight now, after consolidation of power, the fight will be much harder, longer, and more difficult to survive.  I am seeking alternatives. 

Anand Giridharadas , and the substack The Ink, think that the direction must be to consolidate a new, democratic media based upon substacks. That is one idea. But, more is needed. 

Is there a way we can do to CBS, when the Tesla boycott did to Tesla ?

     Nazi Germany.  1940 

 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemöller

 

This quote is attributed to a prominent German pastor Martin Niemöller. 

After World War II, Niemöller openly spoke about his own early complicity in Nazism and his eventual change of heart.  He was imprisoned. His powerful words about guilt and responsibility still resonate today.

 

  

Canceling Colbert Begins the End of Television

Canceling Colbert Begins the End of Television: Did Paramount suck up to Trump by ending its late-night show? Sure. Will there be any television networks to throw people off in ten years? Probably not.

Monday, July 14, 2025

ICE-Secret Police Is Growing

ICE, budget

LeftLinks Weekly, July 11, 2025

The main features of our political landscape regarding policing are about to change dramatically in the coming year.

We are all familiar with our local and state police and sheriff's departments. While not as familiar, we are also aware of the FBI and U.S. Marshals.

But following the Oct. 11, 2001, attack on the Twin Towers, we have a new player on the field: ICE and its parent, the Dept of Homeland Security.

Its gathered components reached back over time to include a number of smaller agencies, all collectively termed 'La Migra' by the undocumented workers who felt their weight. Under Homeland Security, they became more concentrated. In its first few years, ICE was known for rounding up Mexican and Chicano street gangs connected to gangs in the prisons, about 90% of their work. Only 10 percent was aimed at immigrant workers. Today, the situation is exactly reversed: 90% of ICE raids focus on normal immigrant labor, while only 10% go after more hardened street and prison-connected gangs.

This, of course, is the opposition of the claim Trump has used to sell ICE to the public.

How will ICE expand its scope today? Some point to the large totals of deportations under Obama, earning him the title 'Deporter-in-Chief.' But this label and associated claims never matched the hype around them. How deportations were counted changed after the Bush administration: before, people caught crossing the southern border were simply bused back and were not counted as deportations. However, under Obama, these people were fingerprinted and added to the deportation tally, thus giving Obama his record numbers of deportations.

Today, the Trump-Miller team is demanding that ICE seize and deport at least 3000 people a day anywhere in the country to reach the millions in deportations promised by Trump's 2024 campaign. Detentions on that scale are far more difficult than they might seem.

Today, ICE has 22,000 employees and a budget of just over $9 billion. It has over 500 detention centers, jails, and prisons nationwide. Those detained are both undocumented immigrants apprehended by ICE, and those detained by other agencies, such as Border Patrol. About 34,000 people are held in immigration detention on any given day, from about 200,000 detained annually.

According to a study by the CATO Institute, the vast majority detained since 2024 have no criminal records or any other history of violent or anti-social offences—apart from crossing the border, which is a minor misdemeanor offence. They are simply immigrants looking for work or shelter from life-threatening abuse in their home countries. ICE deports many of these, releases some, and continues detaining others, without much rhyme or reason regarding access to court hearings or not.

From 2012 to early 2018, ICE also wrongfully arrested and detained 1,480 U.S. citizens, including many who spent months or years in immigration detention. A 2018 Los Angeles Times investigation found that ICE's reliance on incomplete and error-prone databases and lax investigations led to these erroneous detentions. From 2008 to 2018, ICE was sued for wrongful arrest by more than two dozen U.S. citizens, who had been detained for periods ranging from one day to over three years. Also, about 10 people have died in ICE custody since January 2025, usually from being in poor health when seized, but with no follow-up treatment once detained.

But the ICE we know today is on the cusp of a major transformation and expansion. Vice President JD Vance put a spotlight on the matter when he voted to break the tie on the 'Big Bill:' ICE Funding mattered the most "Everything else? The Congressional Budget Office score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy? is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions," he said.

Instead of its current $9 billion budget, ICE is now slotted for some $170 billion.

Yes, that's a 20-fold increase. It will make ICE the largest police force in U.S. history. As Leah Greenberg, co-chair of the progressive activist group, Indivisible, put it on Twitter/X: "They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo."

What Greenburg means is the new expanded ICE will not be controlled by the regular U.S Armed Forces, nor state and local governments. It remains solely an instrument of a Trump cabinet appointee. The current head of ICE, Todd Lyons, appointed in March 2025, is still unconfirmed by the Senate. This makes ICE, in effect, into Trump's paramilitary.

For starters, ICE will quickly double in size, adding 10,000 new agents and another 9000 new border guards. The number of holding facilities for detainees will expand proportionally.

How is this pending expansion affecting the morale of ICE agents? For some, morale is now quite high, with many new resources in the pipeline. But for others, surprisingly, morale is low. They do not like entering neighborhoods or workplaces where they are not welcome, detaining people without any criminal background or threat. They are seeking the first viable option to resign from the force. We should keep this in mind when checking out ICE agents.

In the years ahead, we can expect vastly increased ICE activities on the streets and workplaces where immigrants might gather. We should note that our local police are usually not required to help them enforce immigration laws. Regardless of any claims to the contrary, every person on U.S. soil has the same rights of equal protection and due process under the law. We should do our best to see that everyone knows their right and is respected in exercising them.

Carl’s LeftLin

  

Who Are ICE - Political Police officers >

 In Long Beach, California, off-duty Border Patrol agent Isaiah Hodgson was arrested and charged with resisting officers, injuring an officer, and other weapons-related crimes. He was apparently armed and drunk as a skunk at a bar—where he followed a woman into the bathroom.

After he was asked to leave—but didn’t—police were called. Hodgson refused to identify himself—sounds familiar for these federal agents. He then fought the officers, injuring at least one, before they had to use a stun gun on Hodgson.

Why is this great news? Well, it serves as a clear reminder that federal agents can be arrested when they break the law. If they assault people—or kidnap them—or commit any crimes at all, they can and should end up in handcuffs.

“No one is above the law, regardless of their position or badge,” LA County DA Nathan Hochman said. He’s right, but it shouldn’t take this level of carnage for them to end up behind bars. I hope we start to see more state and local law enforcement standing up for the people.

Sunday, July 06, 2025

Soldiers Organizing to Defend Democracy

 Soldiers Organize for Democracy.

On the Fourth of July, members of the military are calling on Congress to protect service members who disobey the president’s immoral or unlawful orders.


https://portside.org/2025-07-05/soldiers-are-taking-stand-against-trumps-abuses?utm_source=portside-general&utm_medium=email
 

Brittany Ramos DeBarros speaks outside the Supreme Court Getty Images Brittany Ramos DeBarros speaks outside the Supreme Court during a June 13 protest ahead of Trump’s Army parade, Getty Images


Kim, an aircraft mechanic, joined the military in 2019, at age 18. She and her mother had struggled to survive, even living in their car at times. She didn’t think she could afford college, so she didn’t apply. Like so many young Americans in that situation, she enlisted “to get a stable paycheck, a roof over my head, food in my stomach at the end of the day.” Deployed only once, Kim spent most of her time on base, but she enjoyed the routine: waking up early for 15-hour workdays, staying up late to earn an associate’s degree, making lifelong friends and “amazing mentors.” But in 2024, she began to worry about what a new administration might ask the military to do.

As Kim read Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Trump’s far-right authoritarian government, she became increasingly troubled about the prospect of unlawful orders, fearing especially that the president would use the military against American civilians. Though she’d been planning on staying 20 years in the Air Force, she decided to get out; now, she’s no longer active duty, but because she didn’t serve a full eight years, she could be redeployed. Kim is not her real name; she spoke anonymously to TNR anonymously so as not to jeopardize her future; a dishonorable discharge could harm her employment prospects and imperil her hard-earned military benefits. “I’ve done quite well for myself,” she told me.

She was right to worry about how Trump might misuse the armed forces. Last month, the Marines were deployed against peaceful protesters in Los Angeles. “And now we have military in our streets,” Kim said, “and that’s not where you’re supposed to see them.” She still fears she could be asked to be party to it.

She’s speaking out as part of a campaign launched by About Face, a veterans’ group which today—July Fourth—is launching a “Right to Refuse” campaign arguing that service members deserve the right to refuse unlawful or immoral orders, in the hope that Congress will pass a law offering stronger protections to service members who do so. Founded by Iraq War veterans concerned about the immorality of that conflict, About Face has in recent years heard from service members with objections to sending weapons to Israel, dismantling DEI within the military, and especially, recently, the prospect of being pawns in Trump’s authoritarian fantasy, whether in the crackdown in Los Angeles or the military parade in Washington, D.C.

Brittany Ramos DeBarros, organizing director of About Face, is an Afghanistan veteran who once faced court-martial for speaking out against that war while still in uniform. She acknowledges that Congress isn’t going to pass this law quickly enough to deal with the current constitutional crises—if at all—but she sees it as a rallying point for military communities. Families and service members need support in trying to navigate this moment, she says, and many are finding each other and organizing. From her own experience, she knows that the military can make you feel crazy if you disagree with it.

“So I think it’s profound,” she said, “that people are organically breaking out of that enough to start talking to each other about, ‘I’m really concerned about this. What are you thinking you’re gonna do?’” DeBarros says many are wondering what is in their own best interests—but also what is the most moral choice: Is it better to resign publicly or “better to have more people within the military when that moment comes who are willing to stand up and do something and do the right thing? Which is a complicated question for people to sit with.” On the one hand, service members risk losing their benefits and going to prison if they refuse orders; but if they don’t refuse unlawful orders, she said, many will “live with the moral injury and consequences of carrying out something that they knew was wrong.”

Laura Dickinson, a law professor at George Washington University with extensive knowledge of the military, national security, and the law of armed conflict, said “the deployment of the federalized National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles is quite unprecedented and has broken norms in our constitutional tradition. In our tradition, the United States federal government has been very cautious about using the federal military domestically for law enforcement purposes. It’s norm busting and very concerning to people in the military.” Deploying the military against Americans could fracture that trust terribly, Dickinson suggested: “We are seeing concerns about this from within the military now.”

Dickinson points out that the deployment of the Marines and federalized National Guard in Los Angeles—they’re still there—isn’t “manifestly unlawful”; the state of California has been litigating it. DeBarros also noted that “there’s not a clear consensus amongst lawyers around what right now constitutes technically legal orders and what constitutes illegal orders.” But even if a service member faces an obviously unconstitutional order, it’s not clear what she should do. Defying the U.S. military is one of the most intimidating prospects someone can face. Disobedient soldiers can be court-martialed and face prison. Yet if they do carry out unlawful orders, the fact that they were “just following orders” is no defense in a criminal trial. All this puts military personnel in an untenable situation.

Another fear is that Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act—which allows the president to deploy the military if there is unrest “against the authority of the United States”—simply to quash protests. The Marines aren’t trained in policing, DeBarros points out: “Especially people in the military understand that there’s probably no less equipped branch of the federal government to do de-escalation work than the Marines,” who are trained for warfare, where the rules of engagement are very different. Trump fantasized during his first term about shooting protesters in the leg—a prime example, Dickinson notes, of what police are not allowed to do.

“I may not have joined the military out of the most patriotic of reasons,” said Kim, the Air Force member, “but I still raised my right hand and swore an oath to the Constitution to defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic. But the American people are not the Constitution’s domestic enemies.”

Liza Featherstone is a contributing editor at The New Republic and the author of Divining Desire: Focus Groups and the Culture of Consultation (2018).

 

 

A Slide into a Police State

https://open.substack.com/pub/robertreich/p/sunday-thought-a-national-reckoning?



j

Thursday, July 03, 2025

GOP Budget Bill Would Make ICE "Largest Federal Law Enforcement Agency i...

4th of July Tribute

 


Friday, June 20, 2025

Resistance is Rising _ Trump

 


Of course you will not see this on the evening news.

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Looking Latino Is Grounds for Deportation … in Blue States

Looking Latino Is Grounds for Deportation … in Blue States: Today on TAP: Trump’s order to ICE to seize California’s undocumented, ignoring those in Texas or Florida, is profoundly partisan.

Monday, June 16, 2025

The Real Democratic Civil War

The Real Democratic Civil War: It’s not so much about ‘abundance’ as it is about how to reconnect with a justifiably angry working class.

Thursday, June 12, 2025

Tuesday, June 10, 2025

The Logic of Protests on June 14- No Kings

 Why another protest? What is it going to accomplish? Shouldn’t we be [insert alternate tactic] instead?

These are good-faith questions, and they stem from very reasonable concerns. The speed, scope, and scale of the MAGA assault -- on our rights, our neighbors, our democracy -- is staggering. The stakes are enormous. There are days when nothing we’re doing feels sufficient to the magnitude of the horrors we face.

Protest is a tactic. And with any tactic, there’s a danger of tactical freeze, of it getting stale, of deploying it without a real strategy in mind. And it’s easy to look at any single protest and ask, “what did that even accomplish? What was the point?”

So I want to take a step back and talk about the role of a peaceful mass mobilization like No Kings in the context of our strategic analysis.

If you’ve been listening to us over the last few months, you’ve heard us talk about the idea of autocratic breakthrough -- a period when a would-be dictator basically sprints to consolidate their power, crush the institutions and people who could push back, and create a chilling climate for everyone else. 

For the would-be dictator, success depends on projecting power and creating an aura of inevitability. They need you to believe that Trump is the new normal, that the MAGA movement will be in power for the long haul, that the only rational move is to go along, keep your head down, and protect your own interests. 

We’ve seen over the last six months what happens when this aura of inevitability goes unchallenged. Institutions -- from state governments to businesses to civil society to higher education to media -- start to fall in line, do what Trump tells them, and/or go silent.

Here’s the thing: The aura of inevitability is a lie. It’s all a lie. Power in American society doesn’t derive from the top down. Trump’s grasp is brittle, and he’s overreaching dramatically. He will only succeed if everyone agrees to believe the lie.

Or, as our friend Reverend Barber says: A king is only a king if we bow down.

Countering the aura of inevitability requires a hundred different tactics and strategies. It looks like making an example of Target for obeying in advance and getting rid of its DEI policies. It looks like protesting and toxifying Elon Musk until he bows out of government. It looks like students at Georgetown making a list of Big Law collaborators and organizing their peers to steer clear. It looks like federal workers refusing to obey illegal or unethical orders. It looks like building the muscles and the relationships for collective action.

In short, it requires a countless number of people in a countless number of places to do something that the Trump regime doesn’t want them to do, or to NOT do something the Trump regime wants them to do. That’s how we shake off the aura of inevitability and halt the autocratic breakthrough.

For that to happen, people need to feel like we’re part of something bigger. We need to understand that we’re part of a movement. We need to feel like we will win.

That’s where No Kings comes in. With 1,800 events nationwide, in every state, this will be the single largest protest of this Trump administration.

A map of No Kings events across North America

A single mobilization won’t turn this ship around. But it can do a few very important things:

Change the narrative. A massive show of popular opposition everywhere in the country can disrupt Trump’s effort to project strength. It shows that resistance is big, powerful, growing, and everywhere.

Bring in new people. A mobilization of this scale and scope reaches people who aren’t yet engaged, and -- if done right -- helps to draw them into a cycle of action and relationships on the ground.

Foster community. When you show up, you realize that not only are you not alone -- you’re actually part of something enormous. And that helps to build the shared sense of identity we’ll need for the path ahead.

Spread courage. After Hands Off!, we heard from people in positions of power within institutions -- law firms, universities (one big university, in fact), and elsewhere -- who told us they were emboldened by the protests to push back on pressure from the Trump regime. As we often say, courage is contagious. 

And No Kings comes at an absolutely crucial moment. 

Trump and Stephen Miller’s vicious anti-immigrant crackdown has been escalating over the last few months. The scale of the cruelty and terror they’ve created is almost impossible to put into words. And they have been cynically, intentionally sending their masked, unaccountable ICE forces into blue cities and states, communities where no one wants them. They’ve been working overtime to manufacture chaos, so that they have a pretext to deploy military forces to crack down on dissent for all of us.

Trump’s birthday parade and his attack on LA are all part of the same agenda of fascist theatrics, divide and conquer politics, and the consolidation of power.

Trump wants to look strong. What he doesn’t understand is that true power comes from the people. And on June 14th, we’re going to prove it.

If you haven’t found your closest No Kings protest, please check out our map, register, and then help us get out the word by sharing with friends and family.

In solidarity,
Leah Greenberg

It’s Grade-School Graduation Week in L.A. Send in the Marines!

It’s Grade-School Graduation Week in L.A. Send in the Marines!: Today On TAP: Los Angeles schools try to safeguard their ceremonies from the threat of deportation raids.

Sunday, June 08, 2025

Trump's Soldiers

Nazi Soldiers. Germany, 1938


 



Putin's Russian Soldiers. 2024



Donald Trump's Soldiers.  June 8,2025. Los Angeles



Trump’s Army. Los Angeles. 2025.

ICE: Crossing State Lines to Incite Riots

ICE: Crossing State Lines to Incite Riots: The only disorder the National Guard will find comes from the deporters.

Thursday, June 05, 2025

Injunction Stalls Trump / MAGA Assault on Education Department

 

Preliminary Injunction Issued in Democracy Forward’s Legal Challenge 

Massachusetts – The coalition of educators, school districts, and unions that challenged Secretary of Education McMahon’s massive reduction-in-force has won a preliminary injunction that will halt the administration’s unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education. The Secretary’s Mass Termination Order would have gutted the Department of Education and decimated crucial services the Department provides to every American. The group, which includes the Somerville Public School Committee, Easthampton School District, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) – Massachusetts, AFT, AFSCME Council 93, American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is represented by Democracy Forward inSomerville Public Schools v. Trump.

As the district court wrote, “A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.”

“Today’s order means that the Trump administration’s disastrous mass firings of career civil servants are blocked while this wildly disruptive and unlawful agency action is litigated,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “No one’s lives are being made better by this administration’s attempted dismantling of the Department of Education. Instead of taking a wrecking ball to our nation’s best values and our chance at a better future, this administration should be focused on how to improve education and opportunities for all.”

The dismantling of the Department has begun via mass layoffs of half of the entire Department. Prior to January 20, 2025, the Department employed 4,133 employees. If the Trump administration’s actions were allowed to proceed, just 2,183 would remain. From distributing funds to help schools work with students with disabilities, to providing support and assistance to parents and families, protecting students’ civil rights, and making sure higher education is affordable for students, civil servants at the Department of Education are essential to the success of students. Mass firings of these hardworking people will harm students and schools.  

“We are deeply encouraged by the court’s decision today to grant the preliminary injunction,   which will temporarily prevent the Trump administration from proceeding with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education,” said Ilana Krepchin, Chair of the Somerville School Committee. “This victory is a win for our students, teachers, families here in Somerville and across the nation, and it affirms that our public education system is too important to be undermined by actions that threaten our students’ rights and opportunities. We thank our coalition partners for coming together to defend public education, and we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that our students’ futures remain bright.”

“While today’s decision will provide some relief, the damage is already being felt in our schools – by our students, especially the most vulnerable, and our educators,” said American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts President Jessica Tang. “We have the utmost confidence in the virtue and facts of our case. The White House is not above the law and we will never stop fighting on behalf of our students and our public schools and the protections, services, and resources they need to thrive.”

“Today, the court rightly rejected one of the administration’s very first illegal, and consequential, acts: abolishing the federal role in education,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “This decision is a first step to reverse this war on knowledge and the undermining of broad-based opportunity.  For America to build a brighter future, we must all take more responsibility, not less, for the success of our children. The vast majority of Americans and states like Massachusetts, with the highest NAEP scores, want to keep the education department because it ensures all kids, not just some, can get a shot at a better life.”

“This decision gives public schools important relief from losing critical support, which the Department of Education provides,” said AFSCME Council 93 Executive Director Mark Bernard. “Thousands of families across Massachusetts depend on the vital services and protections under the IDEA Act, which ensures educational support for our most vulnerable children. Massachusetts, the home of the first free public school in America, has long been a beacon of leadership in public education, championing accessible, quality education for all students. Thousands of dedicated AFSCME Council 93 members across the state work tirelessly to create safe, welcoming, and caring school communities where every child can thrive. This win is a strong affirmation of our commitment to protecting public education for all.”

In addition to the layoffs, a presidential Executive Order and other administration statements have described the intent to close the Department and move Department programs and offices, such as the Office for Special Education Programs and Federal Student Aid, to different federal agencies with no relevant expertise or necessary resources. 

Read the full complaint here and the preliminary injunction here

The legal team at Democracy Forward on this case includes Will Bardwell, Elena Goldstein, Rachel F. Homer, Victoria Nugent, Adnan Perwez, and Kali Schellenberg.

– # # # – 

Democracy Forward is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.