Monday, April 13, 2026

Trump is in Trouble

 Heather Cox Richardson. Letter from an American.

https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/april-10-2026?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email


https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/april-10-2026?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email


There is a great deal of important organizing in defense of democracy going on including the mass marches and hundreds of local actions of March 28.  The next mass national action is scheduled for May 1, 2026. These events offer opportunities to connect with new people and groups, to deepen their engagement, to advance the advocacy for democracy within these movements and to build cooperative relationships between national and local resistance

Sunday, April 12, 2026

Trump's Assault on Democratic Media

Last fall, Donald Trump signed a terrifying presidential directive called NSPM-7, ordering the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies to investigate and disrupt progressive organizations and activists as potential “domestic terrorists.”

Now Trump is asking Congress to provide a huge increase in funding to ramp up the NSPM-7 crackdown.

This comes after the New York Times reported that the IRS and FBI have formed a joint task force under NSPM-7 to “attack the funding” of progressive groups, and leaked emails from inside the FBI indicate that state and local police are being enlisted to target progressive groups as well.

Friends, this is one of the biggest threats to democracy that almost no one is talking about.

The corporate media are so cowed by Trump’s bullying that they’ve barely even mentioned NSPM-7, so Inequality Media Civic Action is using our massive following across social media to sound the alarm and demand that Congress reject funding for these attacks on our First Amendment rights.

Under NSPM-7, the Justice Department is directed to create a secret list of organizations and individuals who hold any one of a long list of vaguely defined left-of-center views, including “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Americanism,” “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” or opposition to “traditional American views on family.”

Trump’s budget proposal further states that counterterrorism funding will be used to target progressives who “exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications.”

In other words, if you’re on the internet and oppose Trump’s agenda in any way, you could be on Trump’s secret domestic terrorist blacklist and get a knock on the door from the FBI.

These are the actions of an unhinged authoritarian dictator, and Trump must be stopped.

Unfortunately, the corporate media has been utterly silent about the threat of NSPM-7, so we’re ramping up our public education campaign and mobilizing opposition to Trump’s massive new funding request to implement this draconian assault on speech.

Robert Reich, 

Wednesday, April 08, 2026

Teachers Defending Immigrants and Democracy

Teachers: Work Together to Defend Democracy.





As pressures on faculty from the Trump regime increase, 

I am working on a project Defend Democracy  using Google doc to assist teachers and faculty to work together standing up in  support public education and our constitutional rights and responsibilities. 

There is a great deal of important organizing going on. 

We  are gathering materials, resources, and lessons plans for teachers and faculty to assist  in presenting   knowledge, skills and attitudes which engage in and promote democracy.   For example, there are  important materials on the role of immigrants in the U.S. and how to support immigrant students  during the current political  assault are  available.  At times this part of the approach to promotion of democracy  has been known as civic education. 

Example of existing policy on dealing with Immigration Enforcement,  Twin Rivers Unified School District.  Sacramento, California. 

https://www.f3law.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Responding-to-Immigration-and-Customs-Enforcement-on-School-Grounds.pdf

 

Immigrants and Immigration Resources and Lesson Plans.

Association of California School Administrators. 

https://content.acsa.org/immigrants-immigration-resource-guide/

Many more in the Google doc.  Including Share my lesson plans from the American Federation of Teachers. 

A first step is to consider: How are students understanding the current political/economy and the political forces advancing  the authoritarian agenda in this age of  AI and social media dominating more balanced news coverage. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CrLpHJXDvu87NS5VrwqUuvidD8dtVlNshImkg6ikrIE/edit?usp=sharing

If readers know of additional sources, please post links in the comments area of this blog. 

In our defense of democracy, there is no neutral ground. 

Teachers. Don’t give up on democracy.

Your participation is needed In this crisis of democracy.   Lets work together. 

Posted by D.Campbell

  

Tuesday, April 07, 2026

Timothy Snyder. The President Plans Genocide Tonight

 It is our responsibility as citizens of this nation to say unambiguously that what Trump is now threatening is truly evil. It’s our responsibility as human beings to demand that Trump repudiate this threat to other human beings. It is our responsibility to call on all other Americans, in whatever capacity, to stand up against this despotic act of pure immorality. 

Write. Phone. Shout. March. Trump has moved beyond indecency into the realm of insanity. This must be stopped.

.......

Timothy Snyder 

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

These are not the words of Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Assad, or Putin. These are the words of the president of the United States, today.

Do not be distracted by circumstances. Of course there are emotions, personalities, politics, a war. None of this excuses that sentence. The reason we have a notion of genocide, and a convention on genocide, is to define certain actions as always and definitively wrong.

Are these “only words”? No, they cannot be “only words.” As any historian of mass atrocity knows, there is no such thing as “only words.” The notion of killing a whole civilization, once spoken, remains. It enables others to say similar things, as when another elected representative compared the entire country of Iran to a cancer that had to be removed.

Whatever happens tonight, the president, by saying such things, has already changed the world for the worse, and made acts of mass violence more likely. If we are Americans, he has also changed our country. He has changed us, because he represents us; we voted for him, or we didn’t vote and allowed him to come to power, or we didn’t do enough to stop him. These words are America’s words, until and unless Americans reject them.

Yes, there have been other genocides, and there are other politicians who endorse genocide. That makes the words of the president worse, not better. Yes, the United States has undertaken atrocities before. That makes it all the more important, all the more urgent, that we catch ourselves now. Neither the evil nor the good in our history determines who we are. It is what we do now.

If we do not say something ourselves about this horror, we allow ourselves to be changed. 

Around the president there will be people, sadly, who work deliberately to normalize the language of genocide. There will be other politicians who find the right words to reject it. One can hope that there will be politicians who find the courage to remove the man who speaks genocide from office. And these words should lead to resignations by everyone who works closely with the president.

But we cannot count on politicians. This is ultimately up to us, the citizens: for our own sake, for the sake of the future of the country, for the sake of a possibility of new beginnings, we need to say something, to someone else, to ourselves: this is simply wrong.

a black and white photo of a wavy surface

Whatever happens tonight, or any other night in this war, is now legally defined by the president’s statement. In the practical application of the law of genocide, the Genocide Convention of 1948, the difficulty is usually in proving “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Henceforth the intent is on the record, in the published words of the president of the United States and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces about the death of “a whole civilization.”

Article III of the Genocide Convention makes it clear that not only the person who issues the genocidal order is guilty. Genocide itself is of course a crime, where genocide means the intent that Trump expressed, and actions such as killing members of a group, causing members of a group serious harm, or “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” -- which would of course include actions such as destroying access to energy or water. But also defined as a crime are conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement to commit genocide, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

We all have good ethical and political reasons to reject the president’s words. But those who serve in government, and in the armed forces, have been placed under the legal shadow of genocide by what Trump wrote. To bomb a bridge or a dam or a power plant or a desalinization facility, very likely a war crime in any event, could very well have a different legal significance, a genocidal one, if it takes place after the expression of genocidal intent by the commander and head of state.

The concept of genocide was created by a survivor and an observer of atrocities, RafaƂ Lemkin, so that we could see ourselves, judge ourselves, stop ourselves. But genocide is not only a concept. It is also a crime under international law, signed by the United States in 1948 as a convention, ratified by the United States as a treaty in 1988. That makes the words I have quoted here the law of the land.

The president speaks genocide. And so we too must speak. Not only about crimes, but about their legal punishment.


 

https://open.substack.com/pub/snyder/p/the-president-speaks-genocide?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web 

 



Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. Please subscribe.

This post is public so feel free to share it.


Monday, April 06, 2026

Ads are Killing the Internet

 You may have noticed.

Here is what the American Prospect is substituting.


Why We’re Removing Our Programmatic Ads

Programmatic advertising is the technology behind banner ads, sidebars, and pop-up videos you see on websites—the ones that seem to “follow you around” based on what you’ve been browsing. Unlike a directly sold ad, where a brand negotiates a deal with a specific website to show their message, programmatic advertising uses automated technology to instantly match ads to audiences across millions of sites at once. This is why you might see an ad for shoes on a news site right after shopping for sneakers; your data is used to supply advertisers with likely audiences for their products.


This is not neutral technology. It is built on surveillance and monopoly power: two forces that the Prospect exists to challenge.


Our readers are not products to be bought and sold by corporations. But that’s exactly what happens every time someone loads one of our pages with programmatic ads. An act of democratic engagement—reading independent journalism—gets transformed into a monetization event for a handful of tech giants. The reader’s attention, behavior, and personal data become a commodity, packaged and resold through a supply chain riddled with fraud, opaque middlemen, and unscrupulous actors. And we, as a publisher, must admit to being an accomplice in that transaction.


That ends today. Starting April 6, 2026, The American Prospect is removing all programmatic advertising from our website. We think you and your personal data deserve more respect than we were providing. We think it will provide you with a healthier and more beneficial experience. And we want to explain to you why.


The damage from programmatic advertising is real and visible. Ads slow down our site, create security vulnerabilities for readers, and interrupt the reading process. They create real barriers for readers on older devices and slower connections, the very people who may already face obstacles accessing quality information. Some subscription-based websites offer “whitelists” for people who pay to remove ads, but everyone else is stuck; in fact, many sites demand that users take down ad blockers before accessing their content.


With programmatic ads virtually ubiquitous, readers have vanishingly few options: Either they visit sites that are bloated with ads that make the page barely readable and load slowly, or are forced to pay for expensive subscriptions to access quality information locked behind paywalls.


The costs extend beyond our site. The entire digital advertising system is an engine of waste: economically, environmentally, and editorially. The energy consumed by ad servers, real-time bidding exchanges, and data centers that track billions of impressions per day is enormous, with no public accountability.


The ability to track real-time data about user tastes and behaviors invites predatory companies to capitalize on the information asymmetry to exploit and abuse customers, while the collection of all this data on centralized servers leads to data breaches and invasions of privacy. And it’s not even clear that more honest advertisers benefit from it very much; there are legions of stories about fraud and manipulation suggesting that tech platforms aren’t providing much value for every ad dollar.


Meanwhile, the revenue that does reach publishers is a fraction of what advertisers spend, siphoned off by layers of intermediaries adding little to no value. The broader consequences for the media ecosystem have been catastrophic. When advertising revenue migrated from publishers to platforms, local newsrooms lost the financial foundation that had sustained them for decades. Facebook and particularly Google, which controls the auctions for programmatic ads, take an enormous cut of the revenues of advertising for themselves, leaving publishers with a tiny fraction. This advertising technology business has been officially labeled a monopoly in federal court—as you may have read in the Prospect—and the judge will soon rule on the remedy phase of that lawsuit.


The result for the news business has been well documented: thousands of communities with no local coverage, no accountability journalism, no one watching the school board or attending the city council meeting. Readers migrate to free sources of information on platforms owned by tech monopolies, which have little incentive to do anything other than manipulate them into staying on the platform as long as possible in order to show them ads and harvest their personal data. We have a media environment where readers, watchers, and listeners receive a steady diet of deteriorating online content while our democratic institutions and social fabric erode.


Ad-driven business models have also warped editorial judgment. The logic of programmatic advertising creates an incentive structure that does violence to public-service journalism: more clicks, more page views, more time on site at any cost. This has given us sensationalized headlines, slop aggregation, and the degradation of social media into a traffic machine optimized for emotional manipulation rather than informed discourse.


Nothing about this is particularly new. Almost eight years ago to the day, our executive editor David Dayen wrote a story called “Ban Targeted Advertising,” making the same arguments that programmatic ads don’t serve readers or even advertisers, facilitate monopoly, expose user data to breaches and other harms, and corrode a free and open press. That story led to federal legislation, but Congress has never been able to find a way to solve this problem.


The Prospect has always tried to resist the pressures of clickbait and the self-defeating drive for audience reach. But as long as we participate in the programmatic advertising system, we are complicit in it. We benefit from the same surveillance infrastructure we critique. That’s a contradiction we can’t defend. And we’re not going to defend it anymore.


If you’re a Prospect reader, you’ll notice the difference immediately. When you open our website on your device, our articles will load faster. Your phone won’t stutter through a wall of ad scripts. You won’t accidentally tap a banner when you’re trying to scroll. It will just be a faster, cleaner, more respectful reading experience.


Other sites offer something like this—if you pay. We’re going to provide this experience to every single reader, regardless of their ability to purchase a subscription.


We see it as an experiment and a question: Can a nonprofit news organization sustain itself through the trust and generosity of its readers without selling their attention and data to the highest bidder?


We think the answer is yes.


Over the next year, we plan to redesign our site with readers at the center of all of our decisions. Where banner ads that tracked your information once sat, you’ll instead find clear paths to support our work, read more of our journalism, and join our community.


We’re not going to offset this lost revenue by putting up a paywall either. The Prospect will still be free for all to read.


What we are trying to do is earn and keep your trust. We believe there are serious problems with the business model and incentive structure for businesses for which programmatic advertising is a key revenue stream. The Prospect wants to be untethered from the economic pressures that push for the type of engagement strategy that is aimed at algorithmic optimization at the expense of readers.


Too many businesses in our economy have cast aside the concept of providing a good product at a reasonable price, in favor of surveillance pricing and consolidation. By deliberately forgoing ad revenue and building a business model based on voluntary financial support from readers, we’re investing in a relationship built on respect rather than extraction. That’s a fundamentally different proposition than most of what exists in digital media today, and we think it’s a better one.


The crisis in journalism is, in large part, a crisis of business models. Newsrooms across the country have been hollowed out by a digital advertising system that concentrates revenue in the hands of a few platforms while leaving publishers to fight over scraps. The answer can’t be more of the same.


We’re not the first publication to question the ad-supported model. But so far as we know, we may be the first nonprofit newsroom to run a rigorous, publicly documented experiment to test the alternative. We’re going to measure everything: site performance, reader engagement, donation and subscription behavior, reader satisfaction. And we’re going to publish what we learn so that other independent outlets can build on our experience.


If going programmatic ad-free makes the Prospect stronger, then what we’ve done is create a proof of concept for reader-supported journalism everywhere. Our hope is that we can demonstrate that a publication can align its business model with its editorial values and come out the other side better for it.


How can you help?


Become a monthly donor. Recurring gifts are the foundation of reader-supported journalism. Even $5 a month tells us that this model can work. It’s the single most powerful thing you can do to support this experiment.


Subscribe to our magazine. A Prospect subscription gives you our beautiful print magazine in your mailbox six times a year and, like a monthly donation, powers the work we do.


Sign up for our newsletters. Email is how we build a relationship with readers that doesn’t depend on social media algorithms or advertising platforms. Every sign-up strengthens our ability to reach you directly on our terms and yours.


Tell someone about the Prospect. Word of mouth is still the most powerful force in independent media. If you value what we do, share it. Forward a story. Mention us in conversation. Every new reader is a potential supporter.


We’re going to be transparent about this experiment every step of the way. We’ll share what’s working and what isn’t. We’ll invite you to tell us how the experience feels through surveys and direct feedback. We’ll publish a full report on our findings so the results belong to everyone. If it works, we’ll have a model other newsrooms can follow. And you’ll have a news organization that doesn’t treat you, the reader, as just another revenue stream.

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