

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Trump's emerging doctrine is anchored in the expansion of presidential authority, representing the full extension of the unitary executive theory or the imperial presidency into the sphere of foreign policy.
The latest round of deadly boat strikes, which killed 3 people—bringing the total death toll to at least 70 since September—are confirmation that the second Trump administration has decisively refocused US foreign policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean.
Long treated as a secondary concern, including during President Donald Trump’s first term, when attention centered on China, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, the region has returned to the forefront of US global strategy. But what is emerging is not a revival of Cold War containment or the Monroe Doctrine. It is the consolidation of a new US doctrine, one that aims to fuse emergency powers, economic warfare, and militarization into a unified hemispheric order.
This emerging doctrine is anchored in the expansion of presidential authority. It represents the full extension of the unitary executive theory or the imperial presidency into the sphere of foreign policy, an effort to normalize executive unilateralism as the organizing principle of US governance at home and abroad. Trump’s approach reveals how emergency powers techniques, such as executive orders, emergency declarations, and budgetary discretion, are being implemented as instruments of foreign policy.
This realignment is only possible because of the profound transformations generated by the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, which over the last three decades expanded the legal and institutional capacity of the US executive branch to govern through permanent emergency. What began as exceptional counterinsurgency frameworks, asset seizures, sanctions, and military authorizations without congressional approval has evolved into the standard operating logic of the US government.
Under Trump, these tools have coalesced into a coherent hemispheric project.
Emergency powers serve as the connective tissue linking military strikes, financial bailouts, and sanctions into a coherent system of hemispheric governance.
The Trump administration’s foreign policy rests on a single assumption: that the president can act independently of Congress, international law, and long-standing diplomatic norms. This logic manifests through unilateral bailouts, economic and financial sanctions, and militarized interventions.
For instance, the Trump administration’s authorization of 17 direct boat strikes in the Caribbean illustrates how the administration treats military action as an extension of executive discretion. In a highly contested argument, the Trump administration has maintained that the president has the legal authority to carry out these attacks.
The attacks are against vessels allegedly linked to narcotics operations, though many lacked the capacity or cargo to justify the strikes. Some accounts note that the goal with these strikes is not interdiction, but provocation, using force to engineer confrontation and accelerate regime change in Venezuela.
The Caribbean, once imagined as America’s “backyard,” has become the theater where emergency powers are rehearsed as everyday statecraft.
The economic arm of this doctrine operates on the same logic. On October 17, the administration announced a $40 billion bailout for Argentine President Javier Milei, the self-styled “anarcho-capitalist” who wields a chainsaw as a symbol of his promise to “cut the state.” Half of the funds came from US public reserves and half from private investors, without congressional approval.
The measure was less about stabilizing Argentina’s economy than about underwriting a radical neoliberal experiment that mirrors Trump’s domestic agenda. Milei’s program, including privatizing pensions, slashing social services, and gutting labor protections, has been hailed in Washington as proof of “fiscal responsibility.”
But as Mother Jones revealed, hedge-fund billionaire Rob Citrone, who had recently invested heavily in Argentine debt, maintained close ties with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, raising questions about conflicts of interest and influence peddling.
In this context, the bailout secures a government ideologically aligned with Trumpism while reinforcing US financial dominance. More importantly, the US taxpayers’ bailout played a key role in Milei’s victory on October 26’s legislative elections, giving him a lifeline to address the economic stability exacerbated by Milei’s own policies. Thus, through the language of crisis management, the executive transforms financial rescue into a form of governance by decree.
The military dimension of this doctrine is even more telling. The Caribbean has become the primary stage for the remilitarization of US power and the enactment of presidential emergency authority abroad. In recent months, the Pentagon launched the largest regional deployment in decades.
In late October, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford left the Croatian port of Split for the Caribbean, joined by seven other warships and dozens of fighter jets. More than 10,000 US troops are currently deployed in the area, half aboard naval vessels and half stationed in Puerto Rico. The deployment followed a series of military practices and intelligence operations aimed at destabilizing the government of Nicolas Maduro, all justified by executive authorizations and emergency powers.
Here, Puerto Rico plays a decisive role. The archipelago’s colonial status allows the administration to deploy forces, intelligence, and financial instruments beyond the constraints of congressional oversight. Its ports and bases have been reactivated as platforms for surveillance, drone operations, and logistics under the pretext of “regional security.” The remilitarization of the archipelago echoes the Cold War, when Puerto Rico served as the hinge for US interventions in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Central America. To its environmental, social, and politico-economic detriment, Puerto Rico has been placed at the center of the US intervention on Venezuela, Colombia, and other “enemies” of the Trump administration.
Parallel to the military buildup, the administration has expanded its economic warfare campaign across the hemisphere. Economic and financial sanctions on Venezuela have deepened, further debilitating its oil sector and currency circulation, while the Treasury has introduced new tariffs and sanctions on Brazil, Colombia, and Cuba. The coordination between the State Department and Treasury has transformed sanctions into weapons of punishment, instrumentalizing law to produce political compliance.
Furthermore, on November 5, the US Supreme Court heared arguments in a case on that could redefine the presidential emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The case stems from President Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose sweeping global tariffs, actions he justified as responses to “unusual and extraordinary threats” to US national security and the economy. The court’s decision will determine whether the president can unilaterally wield emergency powers to reshape trade policy, bypassing Congress and potentially transforming emergency authority into a routine tool of governance.
These sanctions, tarrifs, and “boat strike” authorizations were issued through executive orders, bypassing both congressional approval and multilateral oversight. Emergency powers serve as the connective tissue linking military strikes, financial bailouts, and sanctions into a coherent system of hemispheric governance.
Within this architecture, Puerto Rico stands as the linchpin. Its colonial legal status allows Washington to merge colonial governance with global military reach. The archipelago is now both a financial enclave and a military platform, where the imperial presidency meets authoritarian neoliberalism.
Thus, what is emerging is a new doctrine of foreign policy based on emergency powers. This policy deploys tools once reserved for domestic crises to govern an entire hemisphere. Under Trump, Latin America and the Caribbean have become extensions of the US executive powers, managed through decrees, loans, and strikes, all justified as acts of necessity, all serving the same logic of control.
What neighborhoods need are affordable housing, accessible healthcare, well-funded schools, and good jobs—not Humvees on their corners.
When President Donald Trump stood before military leaders at Marine Corps Base Quantico this September and declared that American cities should serve as “training grounds” for US troops, he did more than test the limits of civil-military relations—he crossed them. His proposal isn’t just bluster. It represents a dangerous escalation in domestic militarization that undermines the Constitution and endangers the very people our government is sworn to protect.
American neighborhoods are not battlefields. These our the places where we build our homes, send our children to school–the places we take the buses to work every morning. These cities are markers of who we are, not training grounds. Treating them as warfields sets a precedent that imperils every citizen, especially the Black, immigrant, and working-class communities he has repeatedly vilified. Cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland don’t need military drills. They need investments in housing, healthcare, and education.
There’s a reason the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts the role of federal troops in domestic law enforcement. The law enshrines a fundamental democratic principle: Civilian life must be separate from military power. Trump’s plan to “train” troops in US cities would erase that line entirely.
He has already blurred these boundaries before—from ordering federal forces into Los Angeles during immigration protests to threatening governors who refused to deploy National Guard troops on his terms. Each instance chips away at the legal and moral walls that protect civilian governance.
Democracy thrives when communities are supported, not surveilled; when people are empowered, not patrolled.
Presidents have rarely invoked exceptions to Posse Comitatus. Dwight Eisenhower did so to enforce school desegregation in 1957; George H. W. Bush during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Those were extraordinary moments of crisis—not political theater. Turning urban neighborhoods into “training zones” is neither an emergency response nor a lawful one. It’s an authoritarian rehearsal.
Equally troubling is the administration’s push to reshape the armed forces around an exclusionary, hyper-masculine “warrior ethos,” while dismantling diversity and inclusion programs. Combining that militant culture with domestic deployments is a recipe for disaster. Soldiers trained to neutralize foreign enemies should never be tasked with policing American citizens. That pairing risks injury, mistrust, and tragedy. This culture of war needs to end.
The US military has long earned public trust precisely because it stood apart from partisan politics. Using troops in domestic political battles destroys that trust—and corrodes the foundation of democracy itself.
Communities need peace, not militarization. No number of military drills will solve crime, poverty, or unrest. What neighborhoods need are affordable housing, accessible healthcare, well-funded schools, and good jobs—not Humvees on their corners.
At the Peace Economy Project, we’ve spent decades showing how misplaced our national priorities have become. The United States now spends nearly $1 trillion each year on its military, yet millions of Americans struggle to pay rent or buy groceries. Trump’s proposal to rehearse war inside our own borders exposes just how warped this imbalance is.
Some dismiss his statements as rhetoric. But we’ve already seen troops deployed unlawfully, governors coerced, and protesters tear-gassed. Each time the line blurs between civilian life and military power, it becomes easier to cross again. We are marching steadily toward authoritarianism.
What begins as “training” can morph into surveillance, detainment, or suppression of protest. Once normalized, that level of militarization will be nearly impossible to reverse.
We cannot allow our neighborhoods to become rehearsal spaces for war. Congress must move swiftly to reaffirm the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and establish clear penalties for violations. Governors must reject attempts to federalize local security for political purposes. Civil society—from churches to universities to advocacy groups—must remain vigilant, united, and vocal.
Above all, we must remember: Democracy thrives when communities are supported, not surveilled; when people are empowered, not patrolled.
Our cities are not training grounds. They are where families grow, where culture flourishes, and where democracy takes root. The path to peace and safety does not run through military drills in our streets—it runs through justice, opportunity, and care.
As Executive Director of the Peace Economy Project, I call on every elected official, civic leader, and citizen to reject this dangerous experiment in domestic militarization. We must defend the line between war and peace, between authoritarianism and democracy—before it disappears altogether.
Because if we allow our streets to become training grounds for soldiers, we risk losing the very freedoms those soldiers are sworn to defend.
“Our tax dollars are being weaponized against us,” said the head of the Center for International Policy.
State and local governments have spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars helping cops wage “war” against their own residents under a secretive and opaque program that allows the police to purchase discounted military-style equipment from the federal government.
Over the past three decades, the obscure 1122 Program has let states and cities equip local cops with everything from armored vehicles to military grade rifles to video surveillance tech, according to a report published Thursday by Women for Weapons Trade Transparency, part of the Center for International Policy.
Using open records requests, which were necessary due to the lack of any standardized auditing or record-keeping system for the program, the group obtained over $126 million worth of purchasing data across 13 states, four cities, and two counties since the program's creation in 1994. Based on these figures, they projected the total spending across all 50 states was likely in the "upper hundreds of millions of dollars."
“The 1122 Program diverts public money from essential community needs and public goods into military-style equipment for local police,” said Rosie Khan, the co-founder of Women for Weapons Trade Transparency. “The $126.87 million spent on militarized police equipment and surveillance technology could have instead provided housing support for 10,000+ people for a year, supplied 43 million school meals, or repaired roads and bridges in dozens of communities.”
Congress created the 1122 Program at the height of the War on Drugs, authorizing it under the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act to provide police departments with equipment to carry out counter-drug operations. It was not the first program of its kind, but followed in the footsteps of the more widely known 1033 Program, which has funneled over $7 billion of excess military equipment to police departments.
But there are a few critical differences: 1033 is subject to rigorous federal record-keeping, while 1122 has no such requirement. And unlike 1033, which transfers equipment that was already purchased but not needed, 1122 allows states and cities to spend money to purchase new equipment.
The program's scope ballooned dramatically in 2009 after another NDAA added "homeland security" and "emergency response" missions to its purview. As the report explains, "no regulatory mechanisms are ensuring that equipment is used for counter-drug, homeland security, or emergency response purposes. In fact, the scope of these missions was never defined."
Increasingly, it has been used to provide police with equipment that has often been deployed against protesters, including $6.2 million for weapons, weapons training, and riot gear. Among the equipment purchased in this category was pepper spray, batons, gas masks, and riot shields.
By far, the largest expenditures under the program have been the more than $85 million spent on various armored trucks, vans, and sedans.
Police departments have spent an additional $6 million to purchase at least 16 Lenco BearCats, which cost around $300,000 apiece. These were among the military vehicles used by police to suppress the racial justice protests following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020.
As recently as October 3, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were documented aboard a Bearcat in full military garb and menacing protesters with sniper rifles outside the notorious immigrant detention facility in Broadview, Illinois.
In July, Los Angeles ICE agents were filmed using a vehicle to run over multiple protesters who attempted to block their path.
Another $9.6 million was spent on surveillance equipment, including license plate readers, video and audio recording devices, and subscriptions to spying software that uses sophisticated facial recognition and social media monitoring technology to track people's movements and associations.
The report highlights the increasing use of this technology by college police departments, like Northern Virginia Community College, which spent over $2.7 million on surveillance tech through 1122. College police departments have used this sort of technology to go after student protesters and activists, especially amid last year's nationwide explosion of pro-Palestine demonstrations across campuses.
At Yale, which has made "surveillance cameras, drones, and social media tracking... standard tools in the police department's arsenal," one student was apprehended last year and charged with a felony for removing an American flag from its pole using the school's surveillance system.
The report's authors call for Congress to sunset the 1122 Program and direct its funding toward "a version of public safety that prioritizes care, accountability, and community well-being rather than militarized force."
“Lawmakers, including federal and state legislators and city council representatives," it says, "must act with the urgency that this moment requires to prevent a catastrophically violent takeover of civil society by police, federal agents, and corporations profiting from exponentially increasing surveillance, criminalization, and brute force.”
They note the increasing urgency to end the program under President Donald Trump, who—on the first day of his second term—reversed an executive order from former President Joe Biden that restricted the sale of some of the most aggressive weaponry to local police forces.
“Local police have been given more avenues to arm themselves with military-style equipment during an era of heightened arrests, forced removals, and crackdowns on free speech. These disturbing political shifts have undermined the crucial work of coalitions for police accountability," the report says.
Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the Center for International Policy said: "Our tax dollars are being weaponized against us under the guise of ‘domestic terrorism.'”
"As talk of a ‘war from within’ grows louder," she says, the new report "exposes how this rhetoric fuels real assaults on democracy and civil rights.”
"ICE was always going to be Trump’s private military to deploy domestically against Americans," said one critic.
The $170 billion in new funding for immigration enforcement operations that the Republican Party included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act earlier this year led some to warn that the Trump administration was ramping up spending at anti-immigration agencies not just to fund its attacks on migrants, but to deploy federal forces against anyone it wanted to across US communities.
New reporting on Monday detailed just how much US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has spent on weaponry since President Donald Trump took office—weapons that have been purchased as the administration has turned federal agents on US cities such as Chicago and Portland, illustrating how the president is treating increasingly armed ICE officers as his "private military," as one progressive critic said.
As images spread online of immigration agents deploying pepper spray and tear gas at nonviolent protesters, Judd Legum at Popular Information recently delved into government contracting records from the Federal Procurement Data System and found that ICE has increased its spending on "small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing" by 700% this year compared to 2024 numbers.
The agency spent $71,515,762 on small arms from January 20—the day Trump began his second term—through October 18.
The number dwarfs ICE's spending during the first Trump term, during which the agency spent about $8.4 million annually on small arms, and during President Joe Biden's administration.
"If the immigration enforcement apparatus of the United States were its own national military, it would be the 13th most heavily funded in the world. This puts it higher than the national militaries of Poland, Italy, Australia, Canada, Turkey, and Spain—and just below Israel."
The reporting comes as ICE and other immigration agencies continue to deploy armed, masked agents in major Democratic-leaning US cities, where officers have been filmed and photographed pointing a weapon at a protester; firing a pepper ball at a pastor, and pointing a firearm at bystanders who saw one agent arresting a man.
A CBS reporter in Chicago also accused an ICE officer of firing a pepper ball at her vehicle, causing the chemical to "engulf the inside of her truck."
Sally Duval, a Texas state House candidate in last year's election, said she was "curious to know why ICE needs 'guided missile warheads.'"
The report came days after the Trump administration used the US military for what Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom called "a profoundly absurd show of force that could put Californians directly in harm’s way," when the Marines fired 155-millimeter artillery shells over a section of the busy Interstate 5 freeway to celebrate the military branch's 250th anniversary.
Newsom accused Trump of "using our military to intimidate people [he disagrees] with" and called the exercise "reckless."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said Legum's reporting on Monday showed that "ICE was always going to be Trump’s private military to deploy domestically against Americans."
Legum's analysis—which likely understated total spending on weapons by Trump's deportation forces, as it did not include spending by other anti-immigration agencies—followed a report on ICE's recent funding increase by In These Times.
With the $170 billion included in the OBBBA, reported the outlet, "if the immigration enforcement apparatus of the United States were its own national military, it would be the 13th most heavily funded in the world. This puts it higher than the national militaries of Poland, Italy, Australia, Canada, Turkey, and Spain—and just below Israel."
The budget, Brandon Lee of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights told In These Times, "shows the misplaced priorities of this administration, where they are cutting healthcare and cutting vital programs for people across the country, and putting all of this money into a domestic terrible force."
"And it shows the cruelty," said Lee, "that the Trump administration intends to enact on all people in the United States.”
A previous version of this article stated that "guided missile warheads" were purchased by ICE this year. Subsequent reporting found that an error in a payment record incorrectly showed the warheads were included in the Trump administration's purchase. The article has been corrected.
Trump is a King George of the modern era, testing constitutional limits and mobilizing the coercive power of the state against the citizenry.
President Donald Trump has treated the US military less as an instrument of national defense than as a personal tool for enforcing political will. National Guard units have been deployed to Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and other cities under circumstances that critics argue constitute intimidation rather than legitimate security operations. Citizens and green card holders have reportedly been detained without clear legal authority, raising urgent questions about the erosion of civil liberties. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense has been rhetorically rebranded as the Department of War, signaling a broader offensive posture not just abroad, but potentially at home.
Trump presents himself as a modern Washington or Jefferson, the fearless guardian of American virtue. Make America Great Again promises a return to a mythic past. In practice, however, his administration functions as a laboratory for authoritarian experimentation, exposing the fragility of constitutional and institutional safeguards designed to survive the ambitions of overreaching executives.
George Washington could have claimed lifetime rule; he refused. Trump refused to accept defeat in 2020, attempted to subvert electoral results, and incited the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Washington built a democracy capable of outliving him; Trump has tested one that explicitly rejected him. Law, the Founders warned, is the scaffold of liberty. Trump has repeatedly tested those boundaries, obstructing justice, dodging subpoenas, and converting the Justice Department into a tool for personal protection.
The deployment of National Guard forces to US cities highlights a deeper problem: the militarization of domestic governance. Trump has framed these deployments as necessary for “security,” yet the timing, targets, and accompanying rhetoric—such as memes depicting him as a cavalry commander in Apocalypse Now—signal political theater intended to intimidate and assert personal authority over the citizenry. While he later denied plans to “go to war on Chicago,” the casualness of the threat reveals a disturbing comfort with the idea of domestic coercion.
The central question is not abstract: Will Americans exercise the tools the Constitution provides to resist authoritarian drift?
Thomas Jefferson warned that democracy cannot survive without an independent press. Trump calls journalists “the enemy of the people,” excludes them from briefings, and spreads misinformation to undermine public trust. James Madison designed a system of checks and balances to prevent executive overreach. Trump treats Congress and the courts as obstacles, delegitimizing oversight and eroding judicial independence. Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a strong but accountable executive is inverted: Presidential power becomes indistinguishable from personal empire.
Some defenders argue that Trump remains constitutionally constrained, that executive orders, emergency declarations, or selective enforcement are permissible exercises of presidential discretion. Yet repeated incidents, illegal detention of residents, militarized policing in domestic spaces, emergency declarations used to bypass Congress, demonstrate a pattern of authoritarian experimentation rather than lawful discretion. These are not isolated incidents; they are structural tests of the system’s resilience.
The consequences for democracy are tangible. Norms are eroded incrementally: The legitimacy of elections is challenged, opposition figures are threatened, and civil liberties are subordinated to political calculation. Militarized policing and the casual threat of domestic war are tools of coercion, not patriotism. Democracy does not collapse in a single moment; it atrophies when citizens fail to defend institutions designed to protect them.
Trump’s reorientation of the military, alongside his willingness to violate norms of civilian oversight, illustrates a critical tension: The executive branch is designed to be strong but accountable. When accountability is discarded, the instruments of the state—courts, the military, law enforcement—become mechanisms for consolidating personal power. This undermines the very social contract that binds citizens to the state.
From a class perspective, this militarization has profound implications for working people and marginalized communities, who disproportionately bear the brunt of aggressive policing and state coercion. The deployment of troops in urban areas, framed as protection against “threats,” often intersects with systemic inequalities, reinforcing patterns of surveillance and control over populations that lack political power.
The Founders, for all their limitations, provided tools for resistance: the vote, civic participation, oversight, and the defense of separation of powers. These mechanisms remain available, but they are contingent upon citizen engagement and political literacy. Trump is neither Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, nor Hamilton. He embodies the archetype of executive overreach that classical republicanism sought to preclude—a King George of the modern era, testing constitutional limits and mobilizing the coercive power of the state against the citizenry.
The central question is not abstract: Will Americans exercise the tools the Constitution provides to resist authoritarian drift? The blueprint exists, but it requires active defense. Democratic institutions are not self-sustaining; they depend on the vigilance, courage, and collective action of citizens. Failure to act risks normalizing domestic militarization and the gradual erosion of civil liberties.
In this sense, Trump’s presidency is both a warning and a test. It challenges us to confront the vulnerabilities of our political system, to insist upon accountability, and to recognize that democracy is not merely procedural, it is relational, contingent on a society willing to defend it against those who would wield power as an instrument of personal dominion.
If the guard remains deployed for three months, it would cost more than operating public housing for the entire unhoused population in DC for an entire year.
US President Donald Trump mobilized the DC National Guard under the guise of restoring security in the nation’s capital—despite DC’s crime rate being at a 30-year low. What began as a deployment of 800 DC National Guard troops has grown to encompass 2,091 as of this writing, as Republican governors send hundreds more.
Trump hasn’t just complained about alleged crime in the district—he’s placed a target on people experiencing poverty and homelessness. Claiming that we’re “getting rid of the slums,” Trump has called on troops and police to forcibly remove unhoused people from the city.
Federal law prohibits deploying the military on US soil, except under certain extraordinary circumstances. Trump is currently facing legal challenges over his 60-day deployment of troops in Los Angeles earlier this year under equally unfounded claims about violence and risk—and against the wishes of the troops themselves.
Now he’s ordering soldiers into our streets for the fourth time as president to viciously target some of the most vulnerable members of our society—despite abundant evidence that prosecuting homelessness only makes it worse.
The cost of this cruel power grab is borne by taxpayers like you and me.
The daily expense of deploying troops to DC is more than four times the daily cost of operating public housing for Georgia’s unhoused population, five times for Nevada’s unhoused population, and 15 times for all unhoused people in Wisconsin.
Previous reporting found that National Guard deployments cost the US government $530 per guard member, per day. So the price tag of deploying 2,091 troops to DC is well over $1 million per day—and the number of troops will likely continue to grow. And with no deadline for the DC deployment, those costs could add up for months or even years.
This militarized spending comes at the expense of federal programs—like public housing—that actually do prevent crime and improve health and education outcomes.
Using those figures and other publicly available data, I calculated that the daily cost of operating public housing for all 5,616 people who are unhoused in DC on any given night is one-quarter the daily expense of deploying the National Guard. If the guard remains deployed for three months, it would cost more than operating public housing for the entire unhoused population in DC for an entire year.
This is true for every community across the country—including the states whose GOP governors are voluntarily sending National Guardsmen to the capital. Across those six states—Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia—some 30,000 people are unhoused. The daily cost of operating safe shelter for all 30,000 would be less than one day of the DC occupation.
This holds true for just about every state, I learned.
The daily expense of deploying troops to DC is more than four times the daily cost of operating public housing for Georgia’s unhoused population, five times for Nevada’s unhoused population, and 15 times for all unhoused people in Wisconsin.
If you want numbers for your own city, county, state, or congressional district, you can use the National Priorities Project’s trade off calculator at NationalPriorities.org to learn more about what taxpayers in your area are paying toward militarism—and the services we could be enjoying instead.
Trump’s decision to hyper-militarize our streets is transpiring on the heels of the MAGA budget bill, which cuts food and medical services for millions across the country to further enrich billionaires and war profiteers.
Deploying troops in our nation’s capital, rather than investing in what makes communities safe and prosperous, is yet another attempt to scapegoat struggling people—especially communities of color—to advance a draconian agenda in service of billionaires, war profiteers, and white supremacy.
Government spending on straightforward solutions that help poor and working-class people faces constant political backlash. But providing affordable housing to end homelessness in DC would be far cheaper than deploying troops—and would do far more to improve the city’s security.
"As presidential overreaches pile up, they underscore the urgent need for Congress and the courts to reassert their roles as checks on executive authority," said two experts at the Brennan Center for Justice.
At least 28 migrants who crossed into the U.S. over the southern border could face up to a year in detention and $100,000 in fines after being charged Monday not only with "illegal entry" but also with violating "security regulations"—the result of U.S. President Donald Trump's transformation of the border into a 170-mile-long "National Defense Area."
As Common Dreams reported last month, the White House has pushed to create a "buffer zone" patrolled by U.S. troops along a stretch of the southern border in New Mexico, with soldiers empowered to immediately detain anyone who "trespasses" in the 60-foot-wide area before handing them over to Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The Washington Post reported that the migrants were apprehended on a route that has been used for years by people entering the U.S., and were accused in court filings of violating "the order issued on April 18, 2025, by the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Huachuca military commander designating the New Mexico National Defense Areas, also known as the Roosevelt Reservation, as both a restricted area and a controlled area under Army Regulation 190-13."
Carlos Ibarra, a court-appointed attorney for the migrants facing charges, told the Post that the government was "piling on" by adding the security violation charge, and said that "if these folks had $100,000, they wouldn't be coming over here."
The arrests came after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made an appearance at the border last week, saying in a video posted on the Pentagon's social media accounts, "This may as well be a military base."
"Any illegal attempting to enter that zone is entering a military base," he said. "You add up the charges of what you can be charged with, misdemeanors and felonies, you could be looking up to 10 years in prison when prosecuted."
Ordinarily people who are charged for crossing the border without authorization have faced a potential six-month jail term and up to $5,000 in fines.
The area was turned into a de facto military base when Trump signed an executive order earlier this month giving the Pentagon jurisdiction over the Roosevelt Reservation, saying in a memo that the southern border "is under attack from a variety of threats" and requires a more direct security role for the U.S. military.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, apprehensions of migrants by U.S. Border Patrol sank to just 7,000 in March, the fewest in at least 25 years.
The memo creating a military installation at the border was designed to give federal troops a "legitimate military reason" to apprehend, search, and detain troops without violating the Posse Comitatus Act and without Trump having to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, the Brennan Center for Justice explained in a blog post on Monday.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal armed forces from engaging in civilian law enforcement without the approval of Congress. The Insurrection Act provides an exception to that law, as does a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act called the "military purpose doctrine." Trump's advisers have so far recommended against invoking the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to enforce the law in certain situations.
Trump's memo allowing the military to "act as a de facto border police force," wrote Elizabeth Goitein and Joseph Nunn at the Brennan Center, "could have alarming implications for democratic freedoms."
"It continues a pattern of the president stretching his emergency powers past their limits to usurp the role of Congress and bypass legal rights," they wrote. "He has misused a law meant to address economic emergencies to set tariffs on every country in the world. He declared a fake 'energy emergency' to promote fossil fuel production. And he dusted off a centuries-old wartime authority to deport Venezuelan immigrants, without due process, to a Salvadoran prison notorious for human rights violations."
"As presidential overreaches pile up, they underscore the urgent need for Congress and the courts to reassert their roles as checks on executive authority," wrote Goitein and Nunn.
Along with concerns about the legality of Trump's move, Goitein and Nunn noted that troops "are trained to fight and destroy an enemy; they're generally not trained for domestic law enforcement." Empowering them to engage with civilians now could make it easier for the administration to "justify uses of the military in the U.S. interior in the future."
"Asking them to do law enforcement's job creates risks to migrants, U.S. citizens who may inadvertently trespass on federal lands at the border, and the soldiers themselves," they wrote.
Rebecca Sheff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Mexico, wrote last week that Trump's creation of a military installation on public border land "represents a dangerous erosion of the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians."
"By authorizing service members to detain, search, and conduct 'crowd control,' these new authorities undermine our state's values of dignity, respect, and community," said Sheff. "We don't want militarized zones where border residents—including U.S. citizens—face potential prosecution simply for being in the wrong place. This isn't how we want to be in relation with our neighbors. This dangerous expansion of military authorities threatens both our civil liberties and the cultural fabric that makes our borderlands unique."
Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, also described potential impacts on U.S. citizens who live in border areas.
In addition to endangering migrants who cross the border, Shamsi wrote, Trump's actions "are worsening the conditions under which civilian border communities live."
"Our southern border is home to approximately 19 million people, in addition to the regular business and trade commuters who come across the border every day," wrote Shamsi. "The new policy has serious implications for border residents living under this expanded militarized zone, which includes cities like San Diego, California; Nogales, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and other heavily populated, thriving communities. People in these areas could now face federal prosecution for trespassing if they unintentionally walk or drive onto a designated 'national defense area.'"
Shamsi warned that while Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act, "his administration continues to invest in the theater of war," and called on Congress "to insist on oversight for these expanded actions... and to call for safeguards and transparency to protect border residents from escalating military control over their daily lives."
The parallels between the first months of both tyrannical regimes are striking and chilling, with one big exception.
The fascism unleashed upon Germany beginning in January 1933 with the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor, the youngest ever, and that which unfolded within America with the second inauguration of Trump in January 2025 as President, the oldest ever, exhibited many sinister similarities, but also definite differences during their first 100 days of respective repressive rule. By May 1933 democracy in Germany was dead and buried; but American democracy—one in reality never fully identical with American ideals—still remained alive, though deeply wounded and increasingly afflicted, after just over three months of incessant blows from the Trump regime. The difference offers the antifascist resistance in the United States an opportunity for victory if a viable broad-based united front can be resolutely developed and firmly maintained.
Day One
In the evening of January 30, a bitterly cold winter day, the victorious Nazis staged a massive torchlight parade through Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate which lasted over four hours and included some 30,000 uniformed Storm Troopers (SA). Perhaps as many as 1 million Berliners, around one-fourth of the city population, turned out to witness the Nazi spectacle. Among them were a few protestors who were summarily beaten up by the SA, a small taste of what was in store for dissenters. The march ended at the Presidential Palace and Reich Chancellory where Hitler and President Hindenburg stood together as a symbol of national reconciliation in what was portrayed as the “rebirth of the nation.” Among the songs echoing from the massive crowd was the Song of Germany with its infamous opening refrain of “Deutschland, Deutschland Über Alles.” Several other large pro-Nazi rallies were held across Germany in subsequent days, as were a few sporadic counter-demonstrations organized by Social Democrats and Communists.
By contrast, the parade celebrating Trump’s second inauguration, also on a bitterly cold day, was held indoors at the Capital One Arena. The inauguration ceremony itself was also held indoors, at the Capitol Rotunda, the site of a violent Trump-inspired putsch attempt four years earlier. Several major corporations and individual billionaires donated $1 million each to help fund the extravaganza attended by a number of authoritarian foreign leaders, including the co-leader of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Similar to the nationalistic themes sounded at Hitler’s installment, Trump claimed his presidency marked the “beginning of a Golden Age for America.” As was also the case for the Führer, Trump gave voice that day to the Messiah myth claiming that his life was spared from an assassin’s bullet because he “was saved by God to make America great again.”
Fascist Laws and Orders
Within a week after he moved into the Reich Chancellory, Hitler reportedly declared “I’m never leaving here,” and then promulgated a series of anti-democratic orders to ensure fascist rule in perpetuity. The first major one came on the day after the convenient burning of the Reichstag on February 27, which provoked Hitler to declare at the scene of the crime, “We will show no mercy anymore; whoever gets in our way will be slaughtered.” The “Reichstag Fire Decree for the Protection of the People and State” nullified many civil liberties; expanded protective custody; and sanctioned removal of state governments. It was used to imprison anyone considered an opponent of Nazism and suppress publications deemed unfriendly to the Nazi cause. Significantly extending the repression was the “Malicious Practices Act” of March 21 and the “Enabling Act” of March 23. On April 7, six days after a nationwide boycott of businesses owned by Jews, the Hitler regime enacted the “Law for Restoration of Professional Civil Service,” which purged all Jews as well as those German citizens considered disloyal from civil service and teaching positions. Thousands of Germans immediately lost their jobs and others lost government contracts, as the mythical “peoples community” (Volksgemeinschaft) was systemically converted into a racist Aryan “community of blood” (Blutgemeinschaft), exemplified by the “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Damaged Offspring” enacted in mid-July.
Within a week after he moved into the Reich Chancellory, Hitler reportedly declared “I’m never leaving here,” and then promulgated a series of anti-democratic orders to ensure fascist rule in perpetuity.
May Day 1933 in Nazi Germany was anything but a celebration of labor militancy and liberation from capitalist class rule. The Hitler regime declared this “Day of National Labor” to be a grand celebration of a rejuvenated nation, one which attracted the active participation of millions throughout the country. On the next day, the Nazis outlawed all free trade unions and integrated all German workers into a newly created German Labor Front led by a rabid anti-communist. By May 9, day 100 of the Hitler dictatorship there was no democracy or viable open opposition left in Germany; any resistance was driven underground or in exile. The fascist regime of terror proceeded triumphantly with a massive book burning on its 101st day in power.
Similar to Hitler’s stated intent to protect the German people from “criminals” with the draconian Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act, Trump resorted to the 18th century Alien Enemies Act to protect the American people from allegedly vicious criminal gangs of foreigners, particularly Venezuelans. With the approval of SCOTUS, despite due process violations and cases of mistaken identity, those rounded up under provisions of the AEA were sent to the notorious concentration camp, CECOT, in El Salvador, likely never to return. Trump’s intense antagonism toward immigrants manifested itself on his first day in office when he announced his intent to end birthright citizenship; declared a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexican border; and barred asylum for people arriving through the southern border.
In mid-February, he fired 18 immigration judges; eliminated federal funds for undocumented immigrants; and proposed using U.S. military bases to detain targeted immigrants. In early March, he designated English as the official U.S. language, and announced plans to send an additional 3,000 troops to the southwestern border. Underscoring the racist nature of his immigration policies, he offered White South African farmers expedited U.S. citizenship, but expelled the Black South African ambassador after his government criticized Trump’s policies. In late March, Homeland Security revoked temporary protected status (TPS) for 532,000 people of color (Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans) and ordered their exit by late April. In early April, he revoked visas held by South Sudanese passport holders. Especially harshly targeted for deportation were pro-Palestinian students, activists whom Trump’s Attorney General Bondi ominously called “domestic terrorists.”

Purging the federal government of employees deemed disloyal was a nearly daily occurrence during Trump’s first 100 days, as was seeking retribution from law firms and officials critical of Trump’s actions. In late January, Trump fired the NLRB general counselor, a Democratic board member; fired dozens of Inspector Generals; and removed Democratic EEOC members. In early February, he fired 60 State Department contractors; fired the Director of CFPB; ordered AG Bondi to lead a task force designed to “eradicate anti-Christian bias” in the federal government; fired the head of the FEC; appointed loyalists as members of an independent advisory board on espionage; fired the inspector general for USAID; fired several workers at FEMA; directed that all Biden-era U.S. Attorneys be terminated. In mid-March, he fired 19 workers at NASA; replaced the top lawyer for the IRS; and fired two Democratic managers at the FTC. In early April, he fired the Vice Admiral in Greenland who was critical of Vice President JD Vance; and he removed a DOJ lawyer who questioned the decision to unlawfully deport a Maryland man to El Salvador. After a meeting with far-right activist Laura Loomer, who claimed the head of NSA was disloyal, he fired him. In March, Trump targeted a series of law firms perceived as foes, including the one at which Kamala Harris’ husband worked.
Project 2025, euphemistically called “Mandate for Leadership” by its misanthropic composers, the far-right Heritage Foundation, is a handbook for dismantling democracy and undermining social welfare in America, and its notorious recommendations have been largely followed by the Trump regime during its first 100 days. On January 24, Trump reinstated an anti-abortion policy and revoked two Biden directives designed to improve access to abortion. On February 13, he asked RFK Jr. to study the safety of the abortion pill, mifepristone. Project 2025 calls for ending medication abortion, and the Nazis considered abortion (by Aryan women) to be murder. Also in accordance with Project 2025, Trump signed an executive order to abolish the Department of Education (which he identified as a “big con job”) on March 20, and sharply reduced staffing at NOAA in late February. On the chopping block erected by the Heritage Foundation were also the Head Start program; federal student loans; climate change protection; child labor protection; the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice; and food assistance programs.
Adding to the long list of draconian measures to be enacted were the anti-democratic recommendations of the Capital Research Center, a right-wing think tank with access to Trump’s White House. Founded during the Reagan years by a former Vice President of the Heritage Foundation and funded in large measure by the far-right Koch family, CRC drew up a hit list of 150 groups it considered “pro-terrorist” and recommended their dissolution. Exclusively included in its cross hairs are a good section of the American Left, such as National Lawyers Guild; Democratic Socialists of America; CAIR; Jewish Voice for Peace; Code Pink; Black Alliance for Peace; and Center for Constitutional Rights. Especially singled out for deportation are members of Students for Justice in Palestine, “the group by far most responsible for the current anti-Israel protest movement,” according to the CRC. After providing testimony before several Congressional hearings in 2024, CRC president Scott Walter briefed White House officials about his research findings and deportation recommendations in late March 2025. Shortly afterwards, several pro-Palestinian activists were arrested and deported.
Whitewashing History
The Nazi doctrine of Aryan supremacy necessarily denigrated other racial and ethnic groups as inferior, even subhuman, and also devalued the role of liberating ideals and revolutionary movements, such as The Enlightenment and the 1789 French Revolution. In April 1933, Hitler’s newly appointed Minister of Propaganda, Josef Goebbels, declared that the whole aim of the new regime was “to erase 1789 from memory.” To accomplish this monumental scrubbing of history and culture, books antithetical to Nazi ideology were routinely burned; non-Aryan educators banned; pedagogy restructured; and scholastic texts rewritten. Within its first year, the Hitler regime enacted a series of discriminatory laws directed against non-Aryans. On April 25, the “Law Against Overcrowding Schools and Institutions in Higher Education” severely restricted academic admission of non-Aryans. A few weeks later, an “Expert Committee on Questions of Population and Racial Policy,” a conglomeration of prominent Nazi white supremacists under Heinrich Himmler established the framework for marginalization of non-Aryans and implementation of eugenics. Within a month, the sterilization law was passed.
To accomplish this monumental scrubbing of history and culture, books antithetical to Nazi ideology were routinely burned; non-Aryan educators banned; pedagogy restructured; and scholastic texts rewritten.
On his first day in office, Trump issued an order “Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness” designed “to promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure that future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of American heroes”; he then proceeded to rename the highest mountain in Alaska Mt. McKinley and declared that the Gulf of Mexico be called the Gulf of America. A week later, he issued an order “Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday,” which established Task Force 250, housed in the Department of Defense, to take “actions to honor the history of our great Nation, including the naming of 250 Americans to he honored in the National Garden of American Heroes. With the executive order “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” enacted in early April, Trump ironically asserts that over the past decade there has been “a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth,” and then proceeds to do exactly that. “It is the policy of my Administration,” the order states, “to restore Federal sites dedicated to history, including parks and museums, to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.” To begin to accomplish this whitewashing of American history he ordered that all “improper ideology” be removed from the Smithsonian museums and National Zoo, and that funding for any exhibit or programs which “degrade shared American values” or “divide Americans based on race” be prohibited.
Restricting Sexuality
Nazi ideology regarded homosexuality as a disease on the national community and homosexuals as “enemies of the State.” Transgender and other gender-affirming identities were regarded as mental illnesses. In a 1928 survey, the Nazi Party (NSDAP) officially stated that “anyone who even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy.” Paragraph 175 of the German Penal Code, adopted in 1871, criminalized sexual relations between males; in 1935, the Hitler regime broadened the law to include any “lewd act” (e.g. mutual masturbation) and sharply increased penalties for violations. In February 1933, the Prussian Ministry of Interior ordered Berlin police to shut down all establishments catering to “persons who indulge in unnatural sexual practices,” an order which quickly spread to many other cities. On May 6, the SA raided and destroyed the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. Persecution of homosexuals and transgender persons sharply escalated in subsequent years. In 1936, Himmler established the Reich Central Office for Combating Homosexuality and Abortion. In the years between 1937 and 1939, some 95,000 German men were arrested for homosexuality and imprisoned, many in concentration camps to die.
On the first day of his second presidency, Trump announced recognition of only two sexes, male and female, and then repeatedly targeted the transgender community in the following weeks. In rapid succession, he required transgender women to be housed in prisons for men; ordered removal of third gender options on IDs; moved toward pushing transgender people out of the military; ordered federal agencies to end programs that recognize transgender people; aimed to prevent transgender students from participating in women sports; removed reference to transgender people from National Park Service websites; ordered the CDC to review gender ideology; denied student loans relief to workers aiding transgender youth; and moved to phase out gender-affirming medical treatment for veterans. In mid-April, Trump sued the State of Maine for allowing transgender people to participate in women’s sports. In late January, he rolled back protections for LGBTQ students and required federal workers to remove pronouns from their email signatures.
Celebrating Racism
Racism in Nazi Germany, much of it inspired by Jim Crow laws in America, directly or indirectly infested every action of the Hitler regime. Nazism had absolutely no tolerance for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Neither does the Trump regime. Unleashing his rancid racism with a vengeance, Trump took over 20 separate actions against DEI programs in the first 100 days of his reign. Terminating all DEI programs across the federal government was among his numerous orders on Day One. Ten days, later he even blamed DEI policies for a deadly midair crash between an Army helicopter and a commercial airline over the Potomac River. In his lengthy bombastic speech to Congress on March 4, Trump boasted that his regime “ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government and, indeed, the private sector and our military” and “we removed the poison of critical race theory from our public schools”.
Suppressing Dissent
Even before the 1933 passage of the Editor’s Law, which permitted only journalists who refrained from criticizing the Nazi regime to continue to work in their profession, the German press was systematically forced to conform to Hitler’s views. After the rigged election on March 5 and passage of the Civil Service Law on April 17, German newspapers increasingly self-censored themselves and remained silent about the unfolding atrocities. On March 9, a prominent anti-fascist journalist, Fritz Gerlich, was arrested and eventually ended up in the Dachau concentration camp, where he was murdered in late June.
America’s mainstream press, routinely identified by Trump as an “enemy of the people,” increasingly came under scrutiny and suppression in his second reign. Echoing the censorship sentiment of the Nazi Editor Law, Trump restricted the White House press pool to only those journalists hand-picked by him. In early February, he called for CBS to lose its broadcasting license, a charge he repeated two months later after the network aired a “60 Minutes” broadcast he disliked. On February 23, he called MSNBC a “threat to democracy,” and in mid-March he cancelled all contracts held by key news wire services (AP, Reuters, Agence France-Presse) with Voice of America. In late March, a manager of Trump’s re-election campaign sued The Daily Beast for defamation.
Echoing the censorship sentiment of the Nazi Editor Law, Trump restricted the White House press pool to only those journalists hand-picked by him.
In addition to a $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News, Trump has sued the Des Moines Register, CNN, and the Pulitzer Prize Board. In late January, Trump’s FCC Chairman ordered an investigation into NPR and PBS, public news outlets which a Trump devotee, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, labeled “communist.” In mid-April Trump asked Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by $1.1 billion. To make sure another liberal institution, The Kennedy Center, came under his far-right ideological control, he appointed himself as Chair and named two Fox News members to its Board. The National Endowment for Humanities had most of its grant programs cancelled, and its chair was forced to resign. Trump’s counterterrorism czar, Sebastian Gorka, asserted critics of the deportation actions of his boss are “on the side of the terrorists” and might be criminally charged for “aiding and abetting” terrorism.
Trump’s repression of dissent and criticism extended beyond the media to include judges, prosecutors, and law firms. After calling federal judge James Boasberg a “radical Left lunatic” for blocking his unlawful deportation scheme, Trump said he should be disbarred and impeached. He also suggested federal judges be removed from cases reviewing his policies. In late February, he fired prosecutors involved in cases against him or the January 6 rioters. In late March, he fired two longtime career prosecutors in Los Angeles and Memphis, and in mid-February he directed all Biden-era U.S. Attorneys be terminated. He also fired the directors of the Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. In late April, the FBI arrested a judge in Wisconsin for obstructing a deportation case.
Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime, with the share of military spending rising from 1% to 10% of national income in the first two years of the Hitler regime alone. Just after his first 100 days, Hitler approved a financial budget for his growing war machine of 35 billion Reichmarks over eight years; the entire national income of Germany in 1933 was 43 billion Reichmarks. Military spending for his first year in office was budgeted three times larger than spending on all civilian work creation measures in 1932 and 1933 combined.
Within the first week of his second presidency, Trump issued militaristic orders for “Restoring America’s Fighting Force”; “The Iron Dome for America”; and “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” That third order identified the U.S. military as the world’s “most lethal and effective fighting force,” and called for a “singular force on developing a warrior ethos” throughout the military. On March 21, he unveiled a new stealth bomber, the F-47. On April 10, he bragged that “we have a weapon that no one has a clue what it is, and this is the most powerful weapon in the world, which is more powerful than anyone even close.” Three days earlier, he announced a $1 trillion Pentagon budget for FY 2026, a 12% increase ($107 billion) over FT 2025. In its publication of all military-related expenditures, the War Resisters League claims Trump’s 2026 military budget constitutes 24% ($1.3 trillion) of all federal spending, and past military expenditures account for 26% ($1.4 trillion) of the federal budget. Accordingly, Trump’s real military spending accounts for 50% of the entire federal budget, a colossal military expenditure despite the fact that the Pentagon failed a 2024 audit, the seventh consecutive failure.
On June 14, the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army and his 79th birthday, Trump is reportedly planning to hold a massive 4-mile-long military parade in the nation’s capital. On February 4, he drafted instructions to obliterate Iran if the Islamic Republic assassinated him; the same day he proposed a U.S. takeover of Gaza. A month later, he issued an ultimatum to Hamas: “either free all hostages or die.”
Despite its nominal commitment to socialism, an economic system based upon public ownership of means of production, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), aka the Nazi Party, introduced a radical program of privatization of steel, banks, mining, shipping, railroads, and welfare organizations. Among the industries privatized within the early years of Hitler’s dictatorship were five major commercial banks; the United Steelworks, the nation’s second largest enterprise; German Railways; Upper Silesian coalminers; and the German Shipbuilding and Engineering Company. Privatization generated significant revenue for the Nazi war machine and also helped solidify political support from the super-rich.
Trump’s enthusiasm for privatization echoes the Nazi goals.
Trump’s enthusiasm for privatization echoes the Nazi goals. Following the Project 2025 playbook, he explored the possibility of privatizing the USPS, the Social Security Administration, and Medicare. With the confirmation of Dr. Oz, a fervent supporter of Medicare Advantage private alternative to traditional Medicare, as head of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services on April 4, the effort to privatize Medicare was significantly accelerated. Similarly, privatizing health services for veterans received a big boost with the appointment of a new Department of Defense chief, Pete Hegseth, who publicly promoted shifting more vets to VA-funded private care. Social Security remains in the crosshairs of privatization advocates in the Trump regime. DOGE cancelled leases for 45 Social Security offices and reduced its ten regional offices to four. In early April, the head of the Social Security Administration asserted that to streamline operations it would be necessary to “outsource nonessential functions to industry experts.” In early February, Trump fired more than 100 workers at Fannie Mae, and announced plans to privatize both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A month later he proposed the privatization of Amtrak, the Transportation Security Administration, and the federal student loan program. Also on the auction block are public lands targeted for massive sell-offs to wealthy private investors and developers.
Synchronization
In a major push to consolidate more power, the Hitler regime enacted laws introducing a national policy of Gleichschlatung, coordination of all government operations and social organizations under Nazi control. As a result, state parliaments not under Nazi control were dissolved; every public expression of pluralism was disallowed; political parties critical of Nazism were abolished; all Jewish and Social Democratic officials were fired; and all cultural and judicial institutions were aligned with Nazi ideology or disbanded.
The real purpose of DOGE is to consolidate power, synchronize government operations, and privatize government services as well as dismantle agencies long hated by the Far Right.
Trump announced the formation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on his first day in office with the ostensible purpose of saving American taxpayers around a total of $2 trillion by rooting out alleged massive fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government. Its purported purpose is itself a fraud. At most, only 15% of that savings goal is within its grasp. The real purpose of DOGE is to consolidate power, synchronize government operations, and privatize government services as well as dismantle agencies long hated by the Far Right.
Nine of the government agencies targeted by DOGE are highlighted in Project 2025. Its former co-chair, Vivek Ramaswamy, explicitly used the term “synchronizing” government operations when announcing a key purpose of DOGE. Elon Musk, the Nazi-saluting Chair of DOGE, revealingly used the same term in a bizarre podcast with Trump disciple Senator Ted Cruz. The Nazi policy of Gleichschlatung is commonly translated as synchronization. The executive order establishing DOGE directed its administrators to “work with Agency Heads to promote inter-operability between agency networks…and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” Technological synchronization appears to be a prelude to sociological synchronization, i.e. Gleichschlatung.
Militant Protectionism
Although protectionism through tariffs had been an official policy of Germany since the late 19th century, Hitler’s regime escalated militant foreign trade relations to a new level in an attempt to achieve autarky, economic self-sufficiency. The seeds for this new economic policy, formally adopted in mid-1934, were laid during Hitler’s first 100 days. In a February 11 New York Times article entitled “Danes See Hitler Waging Tariff War,” a German official is quoted as saying “Tariffs are the only emergency defense of my country.” That “emergency defense” received a major boost a month later with the appointment of Hjalmar Schacht as President of the Central Bank; Schacht was widely credited with saving Germany from devastating hyperinflation during the Weimar Republic.
The aggressive use of tariffs by Hitler pales in comparison to what Trump unilaterally imposed on so-called Liberation Day.
Through various financial manipulations to generate funds without adding to the budget deficit and implementation of favorable trade agreements with countries in South America and southeastern Europe, this banking wizard set Nazi Germany in 1933 on the path toward self-sufficiency in a war economy. Further progress, however, depended upon conquest of other countries, something the Nazis with their stated need for Lebensraum viciously accomplished in subsequent years.
The aggressive use of tariffs by Hitler pales in comparison to what Trump unilaterally imposed on so-called Liberation Day, April 2. Virtually all US imports were smacked with a 10% tariff, and 57 countries were saddled with reciprocal tariffs between 17% to 49% in Trump’s tariff blackmail scheme. Singled out for especially harsh measures was Communist China. What started with a reciprocal tariff of 34% escalated to 125% and then, in the wake of China’s countermeasures, rose up to 245% by late April. By contrast, increased tariffs imposed upon all other nations were paused for 90 days, as Trump claimed many were “kissing my ass” to cut deals.
As was the case for Nazi Germany, trade wars initiated by tariff escalations relied upon expansion of national borders in order for the economic aggressor to achieve success. This may explain Trump’s persistent determination to acquire Greenland, and his repeated wish to make Canada the 51st state.
Disappearing People
Disappearing people deemed outside the Aryan Volksgemeinschaft, and later massively exterminating them, was a barbaric speciality of the Hitler dictatorship. The pernicious practice began in earnest in wake of the February 27 Reichstag fire, which was blamed on a foreign communist but, in fact, represented a false flag operation staged by the Nazis themselves. In the aftermath, tens of thousands of communists were rounded up and incarcerated without trial in makeshift concentration camps under great cruelty. The first official concentration camp, Dachau, opened on March 23 and it was designated by Himmler as “the first concentration camp for political prisoners” to be used to restore calm to Germany. Many of its political prisoners, which also included Social Democrats and “intellectual instigators,” were murdered shortly after arrival. Mass incarceration and execution of political prisoners during Hitler’s first 100 days was a harbinger of an institutionalized barbarism to come which collectively consumed the lives of millions of Jews, Roma, homosexuals, “asocials,” “professional criminals,” “Rhineland bastards,” and other “Untermenschen.”
The concentration camps of choice for Trump’s ruthless deportation actions are the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) in El Salvador. On February 12, over 50 Venezuelans labeled “high-threat illegal aliens” were deported to Guantanamo Bay and imprisoned in Camp 6. Since January, some 250 Venezuelan “gang members” have been sent to El Salvador under the auspices of the Alien Enemies Act; the bulk of these men, allegedly all members of the Tren de Aragua gang, were sent there on March 16 in defiance of a federal judge’s court order to halt the deportations. A day earlier, ICE deported Abrego Garcia, falsely claimed by Vice President Vance to be a “convicted member of the MS-13 gang” to CECOT where he remains, despite a unanimous ruling by SCOTUS that his deportation was illegal. The mass deportations in March have been denounced by the Venezuelan government as a “crime against humanity” reminiscent of Nazi behavior.
The mass deportations in March have been denounced by the Venezuelan government as a “crime against humanity” reminiscent of Nazi behavior.
Incarceration and/or deportation of political prisoners, specifically Palestinians or pro-Palestinian activists, have become routine under Trump’s reign. As of late March, the visas of over 800 international students have been revoked by the Trump regime’s policy of “catch and revoke.” Though reasons for this repressive action are often not given, participating in pro-Palestinian protests seems to be a common denominator.
The case of Mahmoud Khalil illustrates the extreme measures employed by ICE to rid the country of one legal resident deemed a threat. Khalil, a Palestinian student leader of protests at Columbia University against genocide in Gaza, was arrested by ICE agents on April 8 and sent off to a prison in Louisiana. No criminal charges were ever leveled against him; instead the Trump regime invoked a McCarthy-era law, Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides for deportation of aliens if their presence is deemed potentially harmful to US foreign policy. The same law has also been used to set up many others for deportation. Instrumental in Khalil’s arrest was Betar, a far-right Zionist group hell-bent upon disappearing anyone it considers a Hamas supporter. Its executive director, Ross Glick, met in March with several senior government officials, including Senator Ted Cruz, and urged them to take action against Khalil and other “terror supporters.” Khalil, who has Algerian citizenship and was a green card holder in the U.S., is married to an American citizen who gave birth to their first child on April 21. Reflecting the callousness of current immigration policy, Khalil was not permitted to be present at his son’s birth. If the Trump regime has its way, Khalil and all others in his predicament will be disappeared.
Resistance
The parallels between the first 100 days of both tyrannical regimes are striking and chilling, with one big exception: the Resistance. The ferocity and velocity of Hitler’s NSDAP fascism had all but ended any open opposition by early May 1933. By sharp contrast, resistance to Trump’s MAGA machine tyranny slowly but steadily grew over the course of its turbulent first 100 days. The first significant outbreak of antifascist Resistance came in February, President’s Day, renamed “No Kings Day” and “Not My Presidents Day” by protestors who numbered in the hundreds of thousands and appeared in all 50 states.
The ferocity and velocity of Hitler’s NSDAP fascism had all but ended any open opposition by early May 1933. By sharp contrast, resistance to Trump’s MAGA machine tyranny slowly but steadily grew over the course of its turbulent first 100 days.
On April 5, which may eventually mark the beginning of the end of the Trump regime, an estimated 4 million protestors filled the streets at 1500 public sites throughout the nation in a massive display of resistance. Driven by outrage at Trump’s many repressive actions, they demanded “Hands Off” government agencies and services targeted for termination. Indicative of the stirrings of a sleeping giant at this historic protest is the fact that for many outraged participants, especially seniors, this was their first public protest. April 19, dubbed National Day of Protest and “We (the People) Dissent,” witnessed another massive demonstration. Over 800 local protests took place nationwide. Among the explicitly antifascist slogans displayed on a forest of signs were “Resist Fascism, Fight Oligarchy”; “Stop the Turd Reich”; and “The Trump Fascist Regime Must Go.” Capturing the sentiment of the growing Resistance was the popular sign present at all of these demonstrations: “We Refuse to Accept a Fascist America.”

That refusal also made its appearance at the ballot box as well as on the streets. Despite pouring in over $25 million to elect a MAGA candidate to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Musk’s chosen one lost by a 10-point margin (55% to 45%) to a liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, on April 1. On the same day, Republican candidates for Congress in a special election in Florida prevailed, but by a much narrower margin than previously for the same seat, portending problems on the horizon for Trump’s MAGA machine in the midterm elections.
However, those crucial elections are 18 months away, a period fraught with danger as well as opportunity. For Trump’s MAGA march to full-fledged fascism to triumph, executive orders and laws far more pernicious than enacted in the past 100 days will be required. Still available in his arsenal of repression are the Insurrection Act and a declaration of Martial Law. Either requires a qualitative shift in the status quo. A false flag operation, the functional equivalent of the Reichstag Fire, would suffice. So would a declaration of war against Iran or China. Alternately, any significant domestic escalation of violence by the Resistance (or agent provocateurs) may also provide the excuse for mass incarceration of dissenters and cancellation of midterm elections.
It is imperative that the growing resistance movement remains strictly nonviolent, for as the wise counsel of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. informs us: “The aftermath of non-violence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.” Beloved community built on love, not a Volksgemeinschaft or MAGA dystopia built on hate, is within our reach beyond the present evil.
Correction: The initial version of this article misspelled Mahmoud Khalil's last name as Khalid. That typo has been corrected.
One journalist warned the proposal would create vast "buffer zone" in which "no normal U.S. laws apply."
The Trump administration is considering plans to create a "buffer zone" controlled by the Pentagon along a large portion of the southern border—a move that would enable U.S. troops to immediately detain anyone who crossed the border into the militarized area, treating them as trespassers on a military base.
As The Washington Post reported, the White House has been evaluating the plan for several weeks as it pushes a crackdown on immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, where more than 10,000 service members are now involved in border security.
Under the proposal, the Pentagon would assume control of a 60-foot-deep strip of the border in New Mexico, lying within the Roosevelt Reservation, which President Theodore Roosevelt set aside for border security in 1907. The land is typically under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Interior Department.
The militarized buffer zone could eventually stretch all the way across Arizona to California, according to the Post.
Journalist Harris Meyer said the satellite military base would serve as "an internal Gitmo," referring to the military detention camp, "where no normal U.S. laws apply."
If migrants—or U.S. civilians—were apprehended at the base, service members would be able to detain them indefinitely until law enforcement or immigration officials arrived.
The Trump administration has so far enlisted Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to detain undocumented immigrants at the border, avoiding violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits active-duty service members from participating in law enforcement work.
The plan, said Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America, "would be the first [U.S. military] mission that would put soldiers out front, in direct contact with civilians/migrants, on U.S. soil."
It injected fear and the weaponry that goes with it into a country where relatively prosperous, connected communities like mine would have had the potential to expand and offer other Americans far more robust support.
Blame Donald Trump and all too many of his followers, but don’t just blame him or them. Yes, he was indeed responsible for the nightmare of January 6, 2021, and, in his own fashion, for the incitement of right-wing militia (terror!) groups like the Proud Boys. (“Stand back and stand by!”) But in this country, in this century, violence has become as all-American as apple pie. In these years, it’s been violence and more violence all the way, literally in the case of the Pentagon. But let me start a little more personally.
Having lived several years in rural Maryland along the Virginia border, I’ve watched the local political landscape gain ever-deepening fault lines (as is true in the United States at large).
In election season 2020, in my enclave of largely well-educated political liberals, many with at least one public servant in the family (like my military spouse), you saw a sea of blue “Biden/Harris” signs as you drove among fields of corn and grazing cattle. However, as you approached the Virginia border, a smattering of black, white, and blue pro-police flags—like so many photographic negatives of the American flag—began popping up in response to growing protests elsewhere in the country against police brutality and violence toward communities of color. And the farther you traveled into Virginia, the more likely you were to see former President Donald Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” signs, as well as occasional Confederate flags, on houses and lawns. After President Joe Biden’s inauguration in January 2021, those Biden/Harris signs disappeared or were occasionally replaced by American flags, but the pro-police flags and MAGA signs remained, signaling an increasingly split nation.
In 2020, another parent of young children I know saw a large pro-police flag hanging from the entrance of a nearby farm and told me he suddenly thought: This is the first time I feel afraid in my own country.
Such changes in the landscape are still all too visible. A newcomer to our region might even assume that such a split between those still dreaming of a country reminiscent of the Old South, or perhaps a future Trumpland, and American democrats like me (who would generally rather ignore the existence of the first group than grasp why they came into being) was how it had always been.
These days, it’s anything but surprising to note that this country has become remarkably polarized. According to a recent Pew survey, 63% of Democrats view Republicans as immoral (up from 35% in 2016), while 72% of Republicans feel the same way about Democrats (up from 47% seven years ago).
In truth, there’s nothing that new about an American tendency to reduce our fellow countrymen to their political leanings. According to a 2014 Vox article citing sociological research, in 1960, just 5% of Republican parents said they would be against their children marrying someone who supported a different political party. By 2010, nearly half of such respondents reported that they would be displeased.
Such an atmosphere of increasing division is reflected in recent trends in gun purchases. In 2020, more firearms were sold than in any previous year on record and, in the years that followed, those sales would only increase. By now, almost 1 in 5 American households have a weapon, nearly 400 million of them, and that weaponry is only growing more deadly. In 2020, another parent of young children I know saw a large pro-police flag hanging from the entrance of a nearby farm and told me he suddenly thought: This is the first time I feel afraid in my own country. And indeed, he responded (as he never thought he would) by purchasing a gun, fearing a future militarized coup the likes of which almost arrived on January 6, 2021.
While we’ve been spending ever greater sums to hurt others, in the process we’ve hurt ourselves, in part by spending far too little to make ourselves healthier, smarter, connected by stronger roads and bridges, and climate-resilient.
Even some of our youngest citizens have caught this fever of fear and violence. At a recent neighborhood party, a young child reported that if Donald Trump were ever to go to jail, she would bake a giant orange Trump-shaped cake, cut off the head, and eat it to celebrate. I had to laugh and then, instead of saying what first came to mind—that it would feel great to do so!—I found myself piously telling her that we probably shouldn’t dream of that kind of proto-violence, even when it comes to leaders who have caused as much suffering as Trump.
Over the past two decades, however, it’s a fact that Americans have grown ever more violent, as have our police. Mass shootings are spiking, for example. And despite the government’s longstanding preoccupation with Islamist militants, over the past decade more than 75% of politically related murders in this country have been committed by far-right extremists, just like the ones tending their fields in my region who, being white, the police would never assume to be “not from here” and so, by definition, dangerously sympathetic to extremists.
How did we get to this point of violence at home?
If you held a gun to my head (no pun intended) and demanded an answer, I’d say that our decision to respond to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with the military invasions of Afghanistan and then Iraq, as well as the launching of a “Global War on Terror,” played a major role in shaping the sort of worldview that’s now become all too American.
Since those initial invasions, after all, Pentagon spending has ballooned almost beyond imagining, being now about twice the 2000 budget in inflation-controlled dollars. Meanwhile, spending on healthcare, education, job creation, and infrastructure has increased so much more slowly. And don’t forget that, in the same years, our police became ever more strikingly militarized (on which more to come). In other words, while we’ve been spending ever greater sums to hurt others, in the process we’ve hurt ourselves, in part by spending far too little to make ourselves healthier, smarter, connected by stronger roads and bridges, and climate-resilient.
What Trump’s rhetoric of violence and victimization obscures is the way increasingly militarized U.S. policies have encouraged Americans to seek out terror in one another.
Another subtler reason is that most of us don’t get what violence is until we suddenly find ourselves caught up in it. In January 1973, after all, the government ended 25 years of the draft, turning our military into an “all-volunteer” force. So many decades later, most Americans don’t know anyone who’s served in our armed forces.
This, in turn, has meant that our 21st-century war on terror, the most prolonged set of U.S. conflicts since the Vietnam era, has been handled by volunteers who experience both longer and more frequent deployments and return home to ever fewer people who have the slightest idea what they’ve been through. As a result, many Americans are now unfamiliar with what killing people professionally does to you. Most have no idea what it’s like to see a family member return from a military deployment in the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa completely changed—with a 1,000-yard stare that makes eye contact hard, a tendency to startle at loud noises, and possibly a formidable temper. For many privileged Americans fortunate not to live that life or dwell in crime-ridden neighborhoods, violence is something left to Hollywood movies until, at least, someone opens up with an automatic weapon in your local supermarket or dance hall.
No wonder it’s been so easy for Donald Trump and many others to cast blame locally rather than on the effects of the omnipresent war on terror and so many related global forces of terror that are hard to capture in political slogans. In response to his recent Justice Department election interference indictment, Trump told his supporters, “They’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you.”
In a sense, he was right when it came to the government in this century. Until recently, when President Biden led the way in injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into growing a clean-energy economy domestically, American policies had overwhelmingly been directed at fighting unsuccessful wars abroad rather than creating job (or life) security here at home for the high-school educated men to whom Trump unfortunately appeals so strongly.
Yet what Trump’s rhetoric of violence and victimization obscures is the way increasingly militarized U.S. policies have encouraged Americans to seek out terror in one another. The Costs of War Project at Brown University, which I helped found, has focused on just such policies. Most notably, anthropologist Jessica Katzenstein has shown how the Pentagon’s 1033 program, begun in the 1990s, funneled startling amounts of excess military equipment (sometimes right off distant battlefields), including armored personnel carriers, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles, to thousands of federal and local law enforcement agencies, including park, campus, and school police throughout the U.S.
That program grew dramatically with the post-9/11 buildup of the military-industrial complex. Police departments applying for such donations needed to explain that they would help them in the fight against drugs or terror. Chillingly, as Katzenstein notes, if police departments don’t have an obvious use for such weaponry, equipment, and vehicles, they have to find one fast, including quelling protests or executing home searches, which have increased significantly in communities of color in these years.
Under such circumstances, it becomes easier to imagine why, according to the assessments of some combat veterans, our police can now look more heavily armored than U.S. troops in foreign war zones. Officers wearing gas masks and bulletproof vests typically showed up in Ferguson, Missouri, back in 2014 with K-9 units, pointing sniper rifles at peaceful protesters and using tear gas, stun grenades, and smoke bombs to disperse crowds in that small Midwestern city where an unarmed black teenager had been shot and killed by a police officer several days earlier. And in the years since it’s only gotten worse nationwide.
Once you introduce injustice into a system, it can be applied against anyone.
At the same time, law enforcement of all stripes adopted a new approach called “intelligence-led policing.” The massive Department of Homeland Security, formed in response to the war on terror, has also been training police from across America in counterterrorism tactics, theoretically based on preventing crime rather than responding to it.
While such a focus may sound positive, it’s helped bring the war on terror home by ensuring that the FBI and local police monitor particular ethnic, religious, and political groups—most notably, Muslim citizens and legal residents. Under far more lax standards for surveillance ushered in by laws and policies like the 2001 Patriot Act, many Muslims have been targeted without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. The FBI even hired Muslim Americans to act as informants in their own communities, in certain cases encouraging young men to profess their sympathy for Islamist extremist groups and acts of mass violence. In such a world, it shouldn’t be surprising that hate crimes, incidents of racial profiling, and discriminatory comments by public figures spiked in the years after 9/11 and only continue to rise.
Once you introduce injustice into a system, it can be applied against anyone. And that’s just what’s happened. Civil-rights groups have documented cases in which, for instance, the FBI used sting operations to infiltrate, surveil, and target left-wing racial-justice activists during the summer of 2020 as America erupted in protest over the police killing of another unarmed black man, George Floyd.
A lawsuit filed this summer by the American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, alleges that a young Colorado police detective went undercover with a local racial justice organization and tried to enmesh one of its members in an entirely fabricated gun-running operation. In a related case, the FBI reportedly hired as an informant a convicted felon who encouraged two Black racial justice activists to assassinate the Colorado attorney general.
Now, President Biden’s Department of Homeland Security and related law enforcement agencies are focusing their surveillance more on anti-government and white supremacist groups. If terror is a hypothetical rationale for the police getting more weaponry, then anyone can manufacture it. If, on the other hand, it’s about real plans to commit acts of violence, then the overwhelming perpetrators during the Trump years were our government and the president’s right-wing extremist collaborators. In other words, you could finally say that the “terror” of the war on terror had come home to roost.
Though the start of a war may cause people to rally around their leaders, wars against something nebulous like terror or, in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s case, “Ukrainian Nazis,” tend to prove short-lived in their ability to unify. Since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, for instance, hundreds of thousands of Russians have fled their country to avoid having to fight their Ukrainian neighbors who often constitute part of their extended families, while their president has called them “flies that we spit out of our mouths.”
As many Americans condemn Russia for its grim invasion, it’s easy to forget that for more than two decades now, others in our world have viewed our post-9/11 foreign policy in much the way we now view Russia’s—as imperialist and expansionist. After all, the U.S. invaded two countries, while using the 9/11 attacks to launch a war on terror globally that metastasized into U.S. counterterror activities in 85 nations.
This has, in fact, been the violent American century, but even less recognized here is how our war on terror helped cause us to turn on one another. It injected fear and the weaponry that goes with it into a country where relatively prosperous, connected communities like mine would have had the potential to expand and offer other Americans far more robust support.
If we don’t find a way to pay more attention to why this didn’t happen and just how we did so much negatively to ourselves, then a police-state mentality and its potential companion, civil war (like the ones we’ve seen in countries we sought to “democratize” by force of arms) may, in the end, become the deepest reality of an ever more polarized America. Of that, Donald Trump is but a symptom.