SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
mccarthyism
Trump Socks It to the World
From the Iran War to the World Cup, President Donald Trump follows his destructive urges.
Jul 24, 2026
I want to play sockhim (oh, sorry, sockher) for President Donald Trump. In our world today, there’s nothing, it seems, he can’t fiddle with or kick around or, for that matter, sock. And whenever he feels it’s necessary (or simply has the urge to do so), he’s always been willing to sockthem, whoever they might be. If something then goes wrong, as with Iran and the global economy right now, thanks to his wild and wildly destructive acts, so what? He’s still Donald Trump and can do the equivalent again somewhere else in some other way the next second-minute-hour-day-week-month-year.
I’m thinking, of course, not just about his unbearable urge to bomb Iran for the 940th (9,400th?) time, as oil and gas prices surge once again, but about his relatively recent intervention in the soccer World Cup to ensure that one of the best players on the US team, who had committed a foul, was red-carded off the field by a referee, and then was denied permission to play in the next game against the Belgian team, could instead compete in that very game. And of course, since everything You Know Who does is headlined, you know just what happened next: The World Cup organization, FIFA, gave way instantly, that player was indeed in the next game, and the US team still lost to Belgium by a significant margin.
And Donald J. Trump just rolled right on. No matter what goes wrong, he never loses. (If you think otherwise, ask him and you’ll find out that you couldn’t be more off base!)
I sometimes try to imagine telling my parents, who died deep in the last century, about “our” president. The only way I could do so, I suspect, would be by comparing him to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the Donald Trump of the early 1950s, who claimed that his opponents were “commies” and, in a distinctly Trumpian fashion, swore that he had a (fictional) list of 205 State Department employees who were members of the American Communist Party and later that the US Army, too, had been infiltrated by commies. His charges would be the focus of the 1954 televised Army-McCarthy Hearings, which did me the great favor (at age 10) of putting a television set in our apartment for the first time so that my mom, Irma Selz, then a well-known political and theatrical caricaturist, could draw McCarthy and crew for the New York Post.
At a time when this planet of ours needed rescuing (from us, of course), the American people reelected a man who continues to openly promise to send us—all too literally—to the blazes.
And yes, he was an all-American monster, distinctly clobbering various figures and destroying certain American lives. Still, in the end, he was condemned by the Senate and essentially drank himself to death, only affecting our all-American world for a few years and (at least in comparison with You Know Who) in a relatively modest way.
Historically speaking, Donald Trump, president (no less!) of the United States of America twice, puts him to shame. Of course, once upon a time (believe it or not), Joseph McCarthy and Donald Trump had the very same adviser (at different moments, of course), Roy Cohn, who, in the (all too literal) end, may have helped create a president from beyond the grave.
McCarthy only had a relatively brief moment at center stage before falling apart in a big-time fashion. Donald Trump, on the other hand, simply goes on and on and (yes!) on, whacking away at so many of the rest of us—Iran being at the top of his list, right now—day after day, week after week, year after year, while our world begins to disintegrate under us. (Oh, sorry, my mistake even to refer in passing to climate change when “our” president considers it a first-class “con job“!)
Joe McCarthy was functionally ejected from his political world and then essentially ejected himself from ours. Unfortunately, Donald Trump took our world by storm, two (out of three) times, while tossing out so many others in the process. And now, at least in climate terms, he seems intent on ejecting us all from Planet Earth.
“We Have a Score to Settle”
If I had told you his tale early in this century, you would never have believed me. In fact, you would have thought me an idiot and a half (maybe even three-quarters). Donald Trump, the president of the United States (at least) twice and so many others of us his apprentices? You must be kidding! Once upon a time, that would have seemed beyond inconceivable for even a second, no less at least eight years. You simply wouldn’t have believed that so much of the Republican Party (and all too many other Americans) would ever have become Trumpublicans.
Under the circumstances, can there be any question that we now live in an upside-down, gloom-and-doom version of a fairy-tale world? Why, just as I was writing this, President Trump decided to launch a new series of air strikes against Iran (yes, Iran!), claiming that “we have a score to settle.” And he’s certainly a big-time score-settler, though who really knows what he’s doing or why—probably not even him. He just seems to get the urge to sockittothem and we’re off to the races.
Isn’t it strange that the man who, once upon a time, wrote The Art of the Deal can’t quite seem to imagine making a deal with anyone anymore? Actually, as he said recently when it comes to Iran: “We’re going to have a deal. We may just do it without a deal, because you know what, it’s easier.” Perhaps he should now change the title of his book to The Art of Doing Without a Deal.
And, of course, that shouldn’t be surprising when the people he’s dealing with there are, as he put it recently, “scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people,” He summed things up this way when it comes to Iran, “Far as I’m concerned, it’s just a waste of time dealing with them. They’re liars… there’s something wrong with them. They’re cuckoo. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.” (No matter at all that, only weeks earlier, he had praised them as “very rational people,” “nice to deal with.”)
And what do you do when you’re dealing with sick scum? You bomb the crap out of them. Or, to put it in sports terms, you sockthem to hell.
At a time when this planet of ours needed rescuing (from us, of course), the American people reelected a man who continues to openly promise to send us—all too literally—to the blazes. He’s simply hot, hot, hot, the very word he used for Trumpian rapper and “White House Barbi” Nicki Minaj. (”We also have a woman that is so respected and so hot and so great and such a great friend of, I don’t say conservative, I say of common sense.”)
You, of course, could say the very same thing about Donald J. Trump. He’s so hot, and the one thing he seems determined to do on this overheating planet of ours is heat ever more of it (which war, of course, accomplishes in a particularly striking fashion).
So, here we all are with a president determined to play sockher, sockhim, sockthem, and sockplanetEarth for at least another two and a half years. And where will we all be then? Sockme if I know?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Acting Like Senator Joe McCarthy on Steroids
Trump is just following in McCarthy’s footsteps by launching his latest BIG LIE yet to firm up his shrinking base of Trumpy MAGA voters: that rising Democratic Socialists are the greatest threat to America.
Jul 05, 2026
After progressives, including self-described Democratic Socialists, won numerous primary victories in New York and elsewhere, President Donald Trump launched a whopper of a lie, even by his crazed standards. He declared that the “communist” Democratic Socialists are “the biggest threat to our nation there is, maybe since our founding…. That includes World War I, World War II, September 11, it includes the Pearl Harbor attack.” This comes after his November 2025 White House meeting with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, where Trump praised Mamdani strongly, saying they would work together to make a better New York City.
Trump is singing a different tune now. He is like Senator Joe McCarthy on steroids, who in the 1950s smeared political opponents, activists, and others, falsely accusing them of being communists. Snarling Joe then maliciously exploited the post-war fear of the Soviet Union. Today, Trump is just following in McCarthy’s footsteps by launching his latest BIG LIE yet to firm up his shrinking base of Trumpy MAGA voters.
Look for Trump, an authentic fascist, to dittohead himself on his “communist” tirade. He knows that the pro-Israel, corporate Democrats are distancing themselves from the rising new progressive candidates who, if they’re smart, will make populist domestic demands that are heavily favored in the polls.
These Democratic candidates should push for a much higher minimum wage than the present frozen federal minimum of $7.25 per hour; full Medicare for All; restore corporate and super-wealthy taxation to the levels of the prosperous 60s; crack down on corporate crimes against consumers, workers, and the environment; and adopt the long-time Western European social safety net of childcare, paid worker and family sick leave, and paid vacations. A real child tax credit would cut child poverty nearly in half and would benefit over 60 million children. They should raise the Social Security taxes on upper-income people to pay for raising Social Security benefits frozen for over 45 years.
Jeffries and Schumer are perfect foils for Trump to pit them against the rising progressive revolt inside their party. Why? Because they will dig in their heels, reflect their paymasters’ demands against most of these reforms, and create the very cleavage Trump wants.
Candidates should push to cut the bloated military budget, end hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare, and direct the savings to public works and safety net services in the community, USA.
These changes have substantial left-right voter support because they are concrete improvements for all families who need and deserve such social benefit returns from the tax dollars they send to Washington.
There are other left-right supported reforms, such as public funding of campaigns; ending the gross, corrupt selling of our elections to the highest toxic profiteering bidders; ending military arms shipments to countries that violate human rights (already federal law but unenforced); and stopping Israel’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians, committed with US weapons and unconditional political backing, which violates five federal laws.
All these measures should be integrated into a heavily publicized “Contract for the American People” and turned into a daily vocal call for a commitment to this agenda by these candidates. The class message is that corporations, all created by government charters, should be our servants, not our masters, as the Kleptocratic Trump regime continues to balloon the Trump Dump.
Bolstered by support of such concrete commitments, Trump’s “communist bellowing” will look ridiculous and will be ripe for the sharpest of counterattacks, dragging the GOP’s wreckage out into the open by comparison. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the Republicans will be hoisted by their own petard.
The real hurdle to this “Contract for the American People” are the corporate Democrats—indentured to the same Wall Street crowd and military-industrial Empire of war and vast profits. The chief corporate Democrats are the party’s leaders—Hakeem Jeffries in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate. When asked by a reporter about impeaching Trump (the cruel, corrupt, violent, America-wrecking outlaw, using the White House as corporate-occupied territory to enrich himself), Jeffries replied, “I don’t want to get out ahead of that discussion.” What about getting ahead of Trump’s daily despicable efforts to destroy our democracy and wrecking America?
How about just representing the vast majority of the Democratic voters and about 60% of all polled Americans who think Trump is “a dangerous dictator” and want him impeached and removed from office?
Jeffries and Schumer are perfect foils for Trump to pit them against the rising progressive revolt inside their party. Why? Because they will dig in their heels, reflect their paymasters’ demands against most of these reforms, and create the very cleavage Trump wants.
If Trump does not steal the election with his many voter suppressions, redistricting, and other attempted usurpations of state election controls, he’ll work to paralyze a Democratic-run Congress. Jeffries and Schumer, to preserve their leadership, are susceptible to not rocking the boat and not fiercely rolling back all the Republican Party’s devastating enactments since January 20, 2025.
Let’s see if the incumbent and newly elected progressives know how NOT to marginalize themselves by pushing distractingly marginal ideas instead of showing just how popular the above components of this proposed Contract for the American People are with the voters.
These challenges should also focus on the growing drive for Impeachment around the country, which both Trump, Jeffries, and Schumer oppose (The Hill reports neither Jeffries nor Schumer have endorsed any of the removal efforts)—the latter two enforcing a “Now is not the time” policy. What smug insensitivity to the fears of millions of Americans hurting from Trump’s cruel decrees every day and night NOW!
Jeffries and Schumer are creating their own Achilles heels for emboldening their progressive Democrats to move to replace them in January 2027.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Throwback to McCarthyism': Trump DOJ Moves to Treat Leftist Dissent as Criminal
A former official from Trump’s first term said the FBI will be able to throw the full might of the surveillance state at “Americans whose primary ‘offense’ may be ideological dissent.”
Dec 18, 2025
The Trump administration is about to embark on a massive crackdown on what it describes as a scourge of rampant left-wing “terrorism.”
But the US Department of Justice (DOJ) memo ordering the crackdown has critics fearing it will go far beyond punishing those who plan criminal acts and will instead be used to criminalize anyone who expresses opposition to President Donald Trump and his agenda.
Earlier this month, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had sent out a memo ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”
As part of this effort, Bondi set Thursday as a deadline for all law enforcement agencies to "coordinate delivery" of intelligence files related to “antifa” or “antifa-related activities” to the FBI.
The memo identifies those who express “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity," as potential targets for investigation.
This language references National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, a memo issued by Trump in September, which identified this slate of left-wing beliefs as potential "indicators" of terrorism following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September.
In comments made before the alleged shooter's identity was revealed, Trump attributed the murder to "those on the radical left [who] have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis," adding that "this kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country and must stop right now."
Weeks after Kirk's shooting, Trump designated "antifa" as a "domestic terrorism organization," a move that alarmed critics because "antifa," short for "anti-fascist," is a loosely defined ideology rather than an organized political group.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller, meanwhile, promised that the Trump administration would use law enforcement to "dismantle" left-wing groups he said were "fomenting violence." He suggested that merely using heated rhetoric—including calling Trump and his supporters "fascist" or "authoritarian"—"incites violence and terrorism."
Klippenstein said that “where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA,” the memo that went into effect Thursday “is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.”
In comments to the Washington Post, former FBI agent Michael Feinberg, who is now a senior editor at Lawfare, said it was "a pretty damn dangerous document," in part because "it is directed at a specific ideology, namely the left, without offering much evidence as to why that is necessary."
Studies have repeatedly shown that while all political factions contain violent actors, those who commit acts of political violence are vastly more likely to identify with right-wing causes.
Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security under the first Trump administration, pointed out in a blog post the extraordinary surveillance capability that the FBI will have at its disposal to use against those it targets.
He said it "includes the FBI’s ability to marshal facial recognition, phone-tracking databases, license-plate readers, financial records review, undercover operations, and intelligence-sharing tools against Americans whose primary 'offense' may be ideological dissent."
"Unfortunately, once you are fed into that system, there is no real 'due process' until charges are brought," Taylor said. "It’s not like you get a text-message notification when the FBI begins investigating you for terrorism offenses, and there’s certainly no 'opt-out' feature. For this to happen, you don’t need to commit violence. You don’t even need to plan it. Under the administration’s new guidelines, you merely need to be flagged for association with the anti-fascist movement to become a potential target."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Post, "It is a throwback to McCarthyism and the worst abuses of [Former FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover’s FBI to use federal law enforcement against Americans purely because of their political beliefs or because they disagree with the current president’s politics."
Taylor argued: "He’s right, but it’s actually more dangerous than that. Joseph McCarthy had subpoenas and hearings and created his blacklists of 'communist' Americans from Capitol Hill. And while controversial FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover may have had old-school wiretaps and informants, Donald Trump’s team has algorithmic surveillance, bulk data collection, and a post-9/11 security state designed for permanent emergency. It’s like comparing a snowflake with a refrigerator."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Niemöller Was Wrong: When They Came for the Communists, People Didn’t Just Stay Silent
Not just silence, but liberal “appeasement” of the right has brought us here.
Oct 25, 2025
It’s one of the most rousing calls to conscience to come out of the 20th century. I’m thinking of Martin Niemöller’s “First they came for the communists.”
You know how it goes. It begins, “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.” And it ends, “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
It’s a powerful statement, and you’ll see it on T-shirts and posters and placards at demonstrations. But when you actually look at our history, it’s not just that good people didn’t speak out. It’s that many Americans threw other Americans under the bus.
The story of the Danish king who wore a yellow star in solidarity with Jewish Danes during World War II is apocryphal. It never happened. So too, while our cultural memory about the McCarthy era romances the refuseniks, hundreds of Americans did comply with the Red Scare, identifying colleagues or associates as communists to protect themselves or preserve their careers. The Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy reports that of the more than 500 people who were called to testify in front of Joseph McCarthy’s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, only about 100 invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions on self-incrimination grounds. The rest went along.
When someone comes for the anti-fascists, the odds are that some will say, “Antifa is us.” But how many?
This phenomenon was even more pronounced before HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee), which paralleled McCarthy’s Senate investigations. The “Hollywood 10” refused to testify, but Elia Kazan wasn’t alone in supplying the committee with lists of colleagues who had supposedly suspect ties. Their cooperation frequently allowed them to continue working in the film industry, while those who refused were blacklisted for years.
So too, in our time, when the press and the pundits, and the politicians, and the courts have come for the abortion providers, the anti-Zionists, the teachers of critical race theory, and the nonconforming queers, many didn’t just stay silent. They actively participated in creating suspicion around those people and their principles.
Citing electoral calculus and political pragmatism, liberal “compromises” on abortion law, dating back to Roe v. Wade, contributed to the erosion of reproductive autonomy well before the 2022 Dobbs decision. After 2021, laws restricting “race-conscious instruction” spread to 45 states meeting minimal resistance.
LGBTQ rights have always been dispensable—depending on the political climate. Today, trans Americans, even kids, are isolated, afraid, and at the nation’s highest risk for suicide.
Not just silence, but liberal “appeasement” of the right has brought us here.
Now President Donald Trump and his mob are trying to vilify “Antifa,” an entity that he thinks exists but really doesn’t. Are we going to allow “anti-fascist” to be made suspect?
Innumerable signs held by countless Americans at No Kings protests suggest it won’t be easy. From the older women carrying versions of “Auntie Fa’s cookies don’t crumble for kings” to the green-clad members of Amphifa (Amphibians Against Fascism), to the 76-year-old who walked in Washington, DC with a straightforward “I am Antifa” sign. When someone comes for the anti-fascists, the odds are that some will say, “Antifa is us.” But how many? Others will always seek refuge in cowardice and caving. Our history is brimming with both.
I had a chance to talk with longtime organizer Dolores Huerta, and theater artist Ellen Gavin about their new short video “The People United” recently on my TV and radio program, Laura Flanders & Friends. Find out more at lauraflanders.org.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jane Fonda Leads Reboot of Father's McCarthy-Era Free Speech Initiative
“They’re betting on our fear and our silence,” Fonda said. “But our industry—and artists around the world—have a long history of refusing to be silenced, even in the darkest times.”
Oct 01, 2025
As the US descends into authoritarianism under President Donald Trump and Republicans, hundreds of celebrities led by actor and progressive activist Jane Fonda on Wednesday revived a free speech initiative originally launched by Hollywood stars including her father during the right-wing repression of the post-World War II McCarthy era.
Fonda and over 550 celebrities rebooted the Committee for the First Amendment, which was first formed in 1947 by a bevy of actors including Henry Fonda in response to hearings held by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and blacklisting of actual and suspected communists throughout US society, including Hollywood.
“The federal government is once again engaged in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry,” the renewed committee said in a statement. “We refuse to stand by and let that happen.”
Other members of the newly re-formed committee include filmmakers Spike Lee, Barry Jenkins, J.J. Abrams, Patty Jenkins, Aaron Sorkin, and Judd Apatow; TV show creator Quinta Brunson; musicians Barbra Streisand, John Legend, Janelle Monáe, Gracie Abrams, and Billie Eilish; comedians Tiffany Haddish and Nikki Glaser; as well as actors Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway, Kerry Washington, Pedro Pascal, Natalie Portman, Viola Davis, and Ben Stiller. Another signatory is actor Fran Drescher, who last month ended a term as the president of the SAG-AFTRA union.
"This committee was initially created during the McCarthy era, a dark time when the federal government repressed and persecuted American citizens for their political beliefs," the initiative's founders wrote. "They targeted elected officials, government employees, academics, and artists. They were blacklisted, harassed, silenced, and even imprisoned."
"The McCarthy era ended when Americans from across the political spectrum finally came together and stood up for the principles in the Constitution against the forces of repression," they added. "Those forces have returned. And it is our turn to stand together in defense of our constitutional rights."
Fonda’s committee revival comes after Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show was temporarily removed from ABC's airwaves earlier this month following pressure form Brendan Carr, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chief, over a monologue by the comedian about far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk’s accused assassin. Kimmel's show returned amid massive public backlash.
Fonda has more than 60 years of political activism under her belt, starting with the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movemements and continuing through Fire Drill Fridays, #StopLine3, and the Jane Fonda Climate PAC in more recent years.
"I'm 87 years old. I've seen war, repression, protest, and backlash. I've been celebrated, and I've been branded an enemy of the state," Fonda said in a letter inviting people to join the committee.
"But I can tell you this: This is the most frightening moment of my life," she continued. "When I feel scared, I look to history. I wish there were a secret playbook with all the answers—but there never has been. The only thing that has ever worked—time and time again—is solidarity: binding together, finding bravery in numbers too big to ignore, and standing up for one another."
“They’re betting on our fear and our silence,” Fonda added without identifying anyone by name. “But our industry—and artists around the world—have a long history of refusing to be silenced, even in the darkest times.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Ridiculous, Dangerous Antifa Order Is McCarthyism All Over Again—Possibly Worse
The Trump administration is abusing federal power to silence dissenting voices in a manner that has not been seen in over 70 years. The country survived Sen. Joseph McCarthy, but will it survive what Trump has wrought?
Sep 23, 2025
Free speech stole the show last week during the joint press conference between US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer after a British reporter asked point-blank the Yankee wannabe dictator whether free speech is more under attack in Britain or in America, following Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension over Charlie Kirk comments.
At this historical juncture, both Britain and America are at a new low when it comes to freedom of expression. In fact, free speech is under serious attack in most Western societies.
Britain has no equivalent to the First Amendment, but the current draconian speech laws are so outrageous that even traditional liberties are vanishing. British police are arresting people for offensive online speech at record numbers while the right to protest has been severely curtailed.
In Germany, the situation is just as bad, if not worse. Long before recent efforts to stifle pro-Palestinian voices, the country’s laws on freedom of expression stood on tenuous grounds. As the late German jurist Weinfried Brugger noted nearly a quarter of a century ago in a study comparing German and American law on hate speech, if a protester was to shout on the steps of the US Capitol “our President is a pig” and even held painted pictures of the president as a pig “engaged in sexual conduct with another pig in a judge’s robe;” or that “all our soldiers are murders;” or that “the Holocaust never happened,” none of these allegations would lead to criminal prosecution as the First Amendment would protect them. However, criminal law would apply to all of the above messages if the protester made the speech on the steps of the German Bundestag. As further elucidated by Brugger, freedom of speech in Germany is not a “preferred right” and does not deserve “absolute protection.”
For the duration of Trump 2.0, we must be prepared for a barrage of further anti-democratic actions taking aim at any individual, group, or organization whose ideas, beliefs, and actions threaten the ego of the “beloved leader” or simply irritate his idiotic whims
In this sense, conservatives in the US, like Vice President JD Vance, are not totally wrong when they criticize Europe over free speech, even though they are complete hypocrites. Indeed, the problem with Vance and the rest of the MAGA Republicans who are seemingly disturbed by the backsliding of free expression in Europe is that they are not interested in free speech as such; they are interested in controlling it. They only want to protect speech that is aligned with their own ideological beliefs and values. Thus, in his speech to the Munich Security Conference in February, where he scolded Europeans for their failings on free speech, Vance not only spread a lie when he claimed that the Scottish government had sent letters to citizens instructing them that “even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law” but kept silent about UK government anti-protest legislation, which, as British academic Eric Heinze astutely noted, targets exactly the kind or protests that Trump fears.
Trump returned to the White House with a promise to protect free speech from government censorship. Indeed, just a few hours after his second inauguration, Trump signed Executive Order 14149, titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” But Trump is a master of doublespeak. His administration has, in turn, carried out a wide-ranging crackdown on universities, student protesters, journalists, lawyers, and the press. The wannabe dictator has accused the press on multiple occasions of being “the enemy of the American people” and has filed personal lawsuits against several news organizations. Under his administration, we are also witnessing the intrusion of the military into civilian life. This type of government action is tantamount to dictatorship, as it constitutes an all-out assault on democracy and the rule of law.
The Trump administration is abusing federal power to silence dissenting voices in a manner that has not been seen since the McCarthy era. Democrats and Republicans alike played the Red Card back in the 1940s and throughout the 1950s in order to silence critics and quash dissent. Trump is doing the same thing by trying to create a climate of fear and suspicion across the country with the boogeyman of the so-called “far left,” especially in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s killing.
To be sure, there should be no illusions about the evolution of free speech in the United States. The current situation is by no means unique, and the First Amendment has never been as sacred as people seem to think. Despite its exalted status, the First Amendment has been “a dead letter for much of American history” and did not come to life until the early 20th century. And when it did, freedom of expression suffered some major blows, thanks to World War I, which created a wave of jingoism, and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which gave rise in turn to an anti-communist alarm known as the Red Scare. In Debs v United States, the Supreme Court upheld Deb’s conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917. Eugene Debs, a leading member of the Socialist Party of America, was convicted for his outspoken opposition to US involvement in World War I and sentenced to ten years in federal prison.
Throughout the 1940s and the 1950s, the First Amendment was censored in the shadows as the suppression of political and social views became a widespread occurrence, spearheaded by a second Red Scare and the rise of McCarthyism. The Smith Act, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Roosevelt on June 28, 1940, was used to monitor immigrants and prosecute members of the Communist Party. In 1951, in a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court delivered a massive blow to the First Amendment by upholding the constitutionality of the Smith Act in Dennis v United States. In 1947, the Truman administration initiated a loyalty program aimed at rooting out “subversives” and getting rid of homosexuals. Such programs were also established for employment in the private sector as well.
It was only in the 1960s, thanks to growing opposition to the Vietnam War and government attempts to curb protests, that the First Amendment entered mass public consciousness in the United States. When a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, was suspended for wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War and in support of a Christmas truce, the students’ parents challenged the suspensions as a violation of free speech. In a landmark victory for student rights and the First Amendment, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v Des Moines (1969) that schools are not “enclaves of totalitarianism” and that “neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.” The Pentagon Papers case defended further the right of free speech, although subsequent US administrations, from Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama to Donald Trump, indicted scores of people “for leaking secrets to the press,” as Lincoln Caplan has underscored in an essay for the Harvard Law Bulletin.
The democratic left has stood up for free speech rights throughout its history. It should remain steadfast in its commitment to freedom of expression and fully and unconditionally reject “cancel culture.”
We are not exactly sure who made the remark that “while history doesn’t repeat itself, it often rhymes,” but it surely applies to the free speech case in the United States. We are now in the midst of a new McCarthy era, and possibly worse. In forcing a comedian and television host like Jimmy Kimmel off the airwaves (Disney reinstated his show after five days of suspension), Trump and his goon FCC Chairman Brendan Carr are following in the footsteps of Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels who, in 1939, as the New York Times reported, banned five German entertainers because they “made witticisms about the Nazi regime.”
Thus, for the duration of Trump 2.0, we must be prepared for a barrage of further anti-democratic actions taking aim at any individual, group, or organization whose ideas, beliefs, and actions threaten the ego of the “beloved leader” or simply irritate his idiotic whims. The so-called "radical left" will surely be the main target. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, Trump described the left-wing activist group Antifa a “sick, dangerous, radical left disaster” and signed an executive order designating it a “domestic terrorist organization.”
Antifa (shorthand for “antifascist”) exists around the world but is not a unified organization and has no leader. As such, it is not clear how the US government plans to prosecute Antifa activists. Either way, this is yet another orchestrated attack on political dissent and freedom of speech by the emerging dictatorial regime in Washington, D.C., under the reign of Donald J. Trump.
The democratic left has stood up for free speech rights throughout its history. It should remain steadfast in its commitment to freedom of expression and fully and unconditionally reject “cancel culture.” Censorship of speech is the first step toward political repression, which is precisely why Trump and his goons are now threatening to punish anyone who speaks ill of their newfound martyr, Charlie Kirk.
Keep ReadingShow Less
University Officials Welcome the Genocide Apologists and Condemn the Protesters
A protest and its aftermath at the University of California, San Diego illustrates the moral myopia of administrators.
Jul 03, 2025
Evidencing America’s profound moral depravity is the targeting of campus protesters rather than the genocidal actions of America’s closest ally Israel. President Donald Trump, members of Congress, Christian and Jewish nationalists, and university task forces on antisemitism all charge campus protesters with widespread antisemitism through singling out and demonizing Israel. Ominously, these accusations have prompted universities to impose far-reaching restrictions on campus speech and assembly which match or exceed the crackdowns of the McCarthy era. Consequently, while Israel’s genocide endures, to the silence or approval of leading political, media, and university leaders, it is the protesters who have been substantially silenced.
Granted, within the surge of campus protests in 2023-2024, a few protesters crossed the line into crude antisemitism or other offensive behavior. The partisan university task force reports on antisemitism at places like Harvard, Columbia, and UCLA have seized upon these scattered instances and lumped them with controversial but defensible chants, such as “Globalize the intifada,” to paint a manufactured picture of rampant hostility toward Jews. Conveniently, neither the task forces nor university officials address the cause of these protests: the ongoing destruction of Gaza, judged to be genocide by Amnesty International and other human rights groups, and the complicity of many U.S. universities. To illustrate this moral myopia, I review a recent tempest at UC San Diego.
On May 19, the Murray Galinson San Diego Israel Initiative (MGSDII) collaborated with UCSD’s School of Global Policy and Strategy (GPS) to host a lecture by Ido Aharoni, a leading Israeli propagandist. In response, the UCSD Faculty Defense Group, GPS students, and the San Diego chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) converged in waging a vigorous protest. While the first two groups featured silent protests, SJP recited, with the help of amplification, multiple chants, including “Israel is an apartheid state. Genocide you celebrate” and “UCSD, you can’t hide. You’re supporting genocide.” Although the atmosphere was heated and a few participants yelled out “baby killer,” “Zionists not welcome here,” and personal insults at attendees entering the lecture hall, the protesters avoided direct altercations and did not try to shut down the talk.
Ironically, in her rebuke of the protests, Dean Freund urged that UCSD continue “to uphold the values that define our community: curiosity, compassion, and a shared commitment to a more peaceful and just world.” The protesters did just that.
An irate MGSDII staff accused the demonstrators of hurling “dangerous antisemitic slurs” and asked for punitive action. Obligingly, the UCSD chancellor and the faculty senate chair issued a joint message that curiously declared anti-genocide protests “an affront to the mission of our university” and promised an investigation for violation of university rules. Dean Caroline Freund apologized for “the disappointment and discomfort this caused for many in attendance, as well as for others in our broader community.”
Following a familiar pattern of selective outrage, Dean Freund and the chancellor ignored the circumstances prompting the dissent. Most importantly, the event was a university platforming of a professional propagandist who founded the government’s “Brand Israel” program. The MGSDII, which funds visiting teaching positions by Israelis, sponsored the talk as part of its mission to exert “a significant potential impact on the image of Israel that is different to, but on par with or exceeding, results of pro-Israel advocacy organizations.” “[M]ore than ever,” it proclaimed in an email blast after October 7, “we need to bring Modern Israel studies to our university classrooms to counteract the hate and biased education being taught by too many faculty.”
The MGSDII chose well in sponsoring Aharoni. Just two months earlier at San Diego State, he boasted of Israeli accomplishments, praised the U.S.-Israeli alliance, defended Israel’s assault on Gaza, and attacked campus protesters. For good measure, Aharoni quipped “I hope he’s deported to Gaza” in reference to the then-detained Columbia graduating student Mahmoud Khalil. As a skilled diplomat, Aharoni evaded the one critical question he received. The MGSDII was right to see the UCSD event as another propaganda opportunity, this time where the dean was lending prestige by introducing the speaker.
A second important dynamic ignored by Dean Freund and the chancellor was the chilling of Israel-related protests for the past year. In spring 2024, UCSD had become a hotspot for Gaza protests. On May 1, a coalition led by the campus chapters of SJP and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) assembled an encampment that grew to several hundred participants. The organizers avoided violent altercations with counterprotesters and facilitated cultural, educational, and religious activities, including an anti-Zionist Jewish Shabbat service, that attracted many visitors. This remarkable display of community activism ended abruptly on May 6 when the chancellor authorized police in riot gear to demolish the encampment and arrest resisters.
Although the city has not filed criminal charges, UCSD has disbanded the SJP and JVP chapters, withheld diplomas from graduating students, and consigned continuing students to a prolonged academic probation while they await completion of investigations. In the fall of 2024, the UC and Cal State systems released revised time, place, and manner regulations, which prohibit encampments, establish new restrictions on protests, and impose harsher sanctions. Combined with the draconian moves from the Trump administration, UCSD’s crackdown has had the intended effect. As professor Gary Fields, a faculty mentor to many UCSD protesters reflected, “What happened in the aftermath of the encampment is that there is still on our campus a climate of surveillance and fear—and self-censorship.”
The UCSD protest of Aharoni marks a courageous effort to revive anti-genocide protests. I would have preferred a more disciplined message that did not insult attendees. Moving forward, protesters would be well advised to devote more planning in coordination with faculty and veteran protesters to wage effective protests. The Faculty Defense Group got the balance right in its press statement: “Our aim in this protest is not to cancel or censor the speech of Ambassador Aharoni. Instead, we want to call attention to the one-sidedness of the event at a time when speech on our campus, and campuses everywhere, decrying the genocide perpetrated by Israel and enabled by the U.S., is being censored and criminalized.”
Above all, students are right to be angry. These frightening times demand robust protest, including the dreaded “disruption” that panics so many university officials. As of June 25, the official death toll in Gaza has surpassed 56,000. Having just joined Israel in a lawless attack on Iran, the U.S. continues to bestow Israel complete impunity to wreak destruction throughout Gaza and the West Bank. Ironically, in her rebuke of the protests, Dean Freund urged that UCSD continue “to uphold the values that define our community: curiosity, compassion, and a shared commitment to a more peaceful and just world.” The protesters did just that. Let us hope that Dean Freund and campus officials across the country absorb the lessons from the brave students on what moral responsibility demands.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Lies Abound and Divisions Deepen, Democracy Is Calling
Democracy requires our determination to create a more widely shared understanding of the dangers we face.
Jun 03, 2025
I have a story to tell that feels eerily relevant to our dire political moment.
It’s 1953, and I’m 9 years old in Fort Worth, Texas. I hear a knock at the door, and I rush to say hello. A stern man looks down at me: “I’m from the FBI, and I need to speak with your parents.”
Hmmm… must be important, I thought, calling out: “Mommy, daddy, someone’s come to see us!”
Yes, indeed, it was grave—totally unexpected and life changing.
Since none of today’s mighty challenges—from climate chaos to virtually unprecedented economic inequity—can be addressed without democracy, our calling is clear.
“I’m with the FBI,” he said. My dad invited him in, and they sat talking. I had no idea what was going on. But later my folks explained that the FBI was investigating us because my parents had co-founded the first Unitarian Church in our city. Somehow that made us suspect—as communists or sympathizers.
My parents were not arrested. But word spread quickly of the FBI probe, and some of my best friends’ dads lost their jobs solely by virtue of association with it. The trauma in our community was great.
Our family escaped the harm others suffered likely because my dad’s work as a forecaster in the U.S. Weather Bureau was essential. He soon accepted a two-year “hardship” post on a tiny island in the Pacific, which later I came to assume was an attempt to evade this suppression.
For most of my life, I have assumed our church was targeted because the FBI believed Unitarians were atheists, which at the time was associated with communism. Only many decades later when I gained access to FBI archival material did I discover that I was wrong. Our church was targeted because it was integrated when Fort Worth was strictly segregated.
This awful time came to be called “McCarthyism”—triggered by the leadership of the junior senator from Wisconsin—Joseph R. McCarthy who in 1950 alleged that he had a list of 205 suspected communists who were working in the government.
Eventually, it led to a period of fear, limiting freedom of speech and thought. As happened in Fort Worth, many were blacklisted, lost jobs, or faced persecution. And many more hesitated to express dissenting opinions for fear of being labeled a communist. Such self-censoring no doubt led to stifling intellectual and artistic life.
Now in our current moment, I find myself asking: Are Donald Trump’s tactics just as dangerous to democracy?
For one, both rest on false premises. About 10 months ago, NPR produced an analysis called “162 Lies and Distortions in a News Conference: NPR Fact-Checks Former President Trump.” It found that he uttered “more than two a minute.” Late last year New York Times columnist Peter Baker decried that “Trump’s Wild Claims, Conspiracies, and Falsehoods Redefine Presidential Bounds.” Perhaps most destructive to democracy was his lie that he was the real winner of the 2020 election.
Yet, today lies continue to undermine democracy, and, just as in the McCarthy era, they are not without consequence.
Immigration has been one of the clearest areas where lies abound. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, and they complement rather than compete in jobs while adding to our GDP and taxes. Yet, Trump has cracked down on the border.
In an opinion piece published in late April, I argued that the removal of migrants without due-process—and particularly the targeting of those who had been advocates for causes contrary to Trump’s agenda—posed a deep threat to key democratic principles including free speech.
It hasn’t stopped with migrants: Without constitutional power, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.). Charged with a crime for going to an ICE facility to oversee its action, which she described as “my job and my lawful right as a member of Congress.” When ICE moved to arrest Mayor Baraka, colleagues encircled him, but ICE pushed through and arrested the mayor.
Many of us have heard the refrain that “democracy dies in darkness,” the slogan officially adopted by The Washington Post (now ironically owned by Amazon founderJeff Bezos). It feels right. Fact-based exchange is democracy’s life blood.
I began with my memories of the lives devastated by lies in the 1950s. And, as the cliché goes, those who do not learn from history will repeat its errors.
Today, most of us would likely agree that democracy cannot survive without fact-based interchange, as history offers strong evidence—from Hitler to Stalin to Mao Zedong whose lies divided their people.
And, since none of today’s mighty challenges—from climate chaos to virtually unprecedented economic inequity—can be addressed without democracy, our calling is clear. Democracy requires our determination to create a more widely shared understanding of the dangers we face.
Remember every one of us is an influencer. So, we can fact-check the many charges so dividing our nation and speak up in conversations with friends, family, and coworkers. We can support citizen organizations such as Democracy Forward “using legal strategies to challenge anti-democratic actions and advance democratic values” and Protect Democracy working to “defend elections, the rule of law, and fact-based political debate against authoritarian threat.” Another is Common Cause fighting for “the democracy we deserve” via transparency, accountability, and campaign finance reform.
When so much is at stake, democracy itself is our moral calling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Push Back Against Sen. Cotton’s McCarthyite Lies About CODEPINK: Women for Peace
Sen. Cotton does not seem to care that his untruthful statements in a U.S. congressional hearing aired around the world can have immediate and dangerous consequences for those he lies about, their friends, and family.
Mar 27, 2025
On Tuesday, in the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on global threats with the five heads of intelligence agencies of the U.S. government, Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton accused on national TV a group I have worked with for over 20 years, CODEPINK: Women for Peace, of being funded by the Communist Party of China.
During the hearing CODEPINK activist Tighe Barry stood up following the presentation of the Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard’s lengthy statement about global threats to U.S. national security and yelled, “Stop Funding Israel,” since neither Intelligence Committee Chair Cotton nor Vice Chair Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) had mentioned Israel in their opening statement, nor had Gabbard mentioned the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza in her statement either.
As Capitol police were taking Barry out of the hearing room, in the horrific style of the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s, Cotton maliciously said that Barry was a “CODEPINK lunatic that was funded by the Communist Party of China.” Cotton then said if anyone had something to say to do so.
CODEPINK members have been challenging in the U.S. Congress the war policies of five presidential administrations, beginning in 2001 with the Bush wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, long before Sen. Cotton was elected as a U.S. Senator in 2014.
Refusing to buckle or be intimidated by Cotton’s lies about the funding of CODEPINK, I stood up and yelled, “I’m a retired Army colonel and former diplomat. I work with CODEPINK, and it is not funded by Communist China.” I too was hauled out of the hearing room by Capitol police and arrested.
After I was taken out of the hearing room, Cotton libelously continued his McCarthyite lie: “The fact that Communist China funds CODEPINK, which interrupts a hearing about Israel, illustrates Director Gabbard’s point that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are working together in greater concert than they ever had before.”
Sen. Cotton does not appreciate the responsibility he has in his one-month-old elevation to the chair of the Senate’s Intelligence Committee.
Sen. Cotton does not seem to care that his untruthful statements in a U.S. congressional hearing aired around the world can have immediate and dangerous consequences for those he lies about, their friends, and family. In today’s polarized political environment, we know that the words of senior leaders can rile supporters into frenzies as we saw on January 6, 2021, with President Donald Trump’s loyal supporters injuring many Capitol police and destroying parts of the nation’s Capitol building in their attempt to stop the presidential election proceedings.
CODEPINK members have been challenging in the U.S. Congress the war policies of five presidential administrations, beginning in 2001 with the Bush wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, long before Sen. Cotton was elected as a U.S. Senator in 2014. We have been in the U.S. Senate offices and halls twice as long as he has. We have nonviolently protested the war policies of former Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Trump, Joe Biden, and now Trump again.
After getting out of the Capitol Hill police station, a CODEPINK delegation went to Sen. Cotton’s office in the Russell Senate Office building and made a complaint to his office staff.
We are also submitting a complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee over the untrue and libelous statements Sen. Cotton made in the hearing.
The abduction and deportation of international students who joined protests against U.S. complicity in the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, the scathing treatment of visitors who have wanted to enter our country, and now the McCarthyite intimidating tactics used by Sen. Cotton in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing of telling lies about individuals and organizations that challenge the policies of the U.S. government, particularly its complicity in the Israeli genocide of Gaza, must be called out and pushed back against.
And we must push back against U.S. senators who actually receive funding from front groups for other countries. Sen. Cotton has received $1,197,989 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to advocate for the genocidal policies of the State of Israel.
Keep ReadingShow Less
What Trump Means When He Calls Anyone Who Disagrees With Him Palestinian
This is the real warning in Trump’s attack: You don’t have to be Palestinian to be punished like one. You don’t have to be Arab or Muslim. You only have to step out of line.
Mar 23, 2025
“He’s not Jewish anymore. He’s a Palestinian.”
With these words, U.S. President Donald Trump did not merely insult Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—he exposed something far more insidious. In Trump’s world, Palestinian is not just a nationality. It is an accusation, a sentence of exile, a mark of delegitimization.
Schumer’s crime was questioning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s increasingly authoritarian government. Schumer, a staunch Zionist who has long positioned himself as one of Israel’s most unwavering defenders, dared to suggest that Netanyahu’s extremism was harming Israel’s future.
A new McCarthyism is taking hold in America, and this time, it is not communists in its crosshairs. It is anyone who refuses to fall in line with Israel’s agenda.
That alone was enough for Trump to strip him of his Jewishness, to brand him as something else—something meant to be demeaning.
This is not the first time Trump has wielded the word “Palestinian” as a slur. He has used it against former President Joe Biden, against Schumer previously, and indeed against anyone who dares to question Israel’s policies.
The message is clear: To be called Palestinian is to be cast out. Your voice no longer counts. Your legitimacy is revoked, your rights erased.
Had Schumer not been Jewish, Trump would have called him antisemitic. But even that category is losing its meaning. This is not about identity. It is about obedience.
Because in this new political order, anyone can become Palestinian.
Erased From History
To be Palestinian in Trump’s world is to be without rights. A Palestinian can be starved, bombed, and expelled. A Palestinian can be erased from history—just as Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, did when they engineered the Abraham Accords, bypassing Palestinians as though they did not exist.
A Palestinian can be stripped of legal protections, even if they hold U.S. residency and have committed no crime. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student, is facing deportation for nothing more than expressing his political views.
A Palestinian can be arrested for protesting, fired for speaking, or blacklisted for dissenting. And now, anyone can be treated as one.
This is the real warning in Trump’s attack. You don’t have to be Palestinian to be punished like one. You don’t have to be Arab or Muslim. You only have to step out of line.
Even Jewishness is no longer protection. Your identity has become conditional, your history disposable. You can be declared a traitor, an enemy within, someone who has forfeited their place.
The moment you question Israel, you become Palestinian—not by birth, but by decree. Because in this world, a Palestinian has no rights, nor does anyone who defends them.
A new McCarthyism is taking hold in America, and this time, it is not communists in its crosshairs. It is anyone who refuses to fall in line with Israel’s agenda.
Historical Purge
In the 1950s, repression was justified as a crusade against subversion, a purge of those deemed enemies of the state. Today, the same machinery of silencing is at work under the guise of combating antisemitism. But this is not about protecting Jewish people from hate; it is about criminalizing criticism of Israel.
It is about silencing students, journalists, academics, activists—anyone who speaks out against occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
And the hypocrisy could not be more glaring.
A system meant to safeguard the marginalized is now being repurposed to shield a foreign government from criticism.
Trump and his allies have built their brand on railing against political correctness. They claim to be defenders of free speech, warriors against censorship. Just a few weeks ago, Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, stood at the Munich Security Conference and scolded European leaders for restricting expression. He lamented the West’s supposed retreat from free debate.
And yet, in the U.S. under Trump and those who champion his ideology, free speech does not apply if the topic is Israel.
Pro-Palestinian students are arrested, expelled, and stripped of their degrees. Professors who challenge Israeli policies are pushed out. Journalists who report on Israeli war crimes are blacklisted, harassed, and silenced. Films documenting Palestinian suffering are cancelled. Human rights organizations are smeared as terrorist sympathizers.
Universities and colleges—once bastions of free inquiry—are under siege, with the Trump administration threatening to strip their federal funding if they do not suppress pro-Palestinian activism. The same institutions that once championed open debate are now being forced into policing thought.
The consequences extend beyond campuses. The U.S. Department of Education, which is supposed to protect students facing discrimination, has been ordered to prioritize antisemitism cases—some of which are politically motivated—over the needs of vulnerable children.
Parents of students with disabilities are struggling to access the support to which they are legally entitled, because civil rights resources have been diverted to police speech on Israel. A system meant to safeguard the marginalized is now being repurposed to shield a foreign government from criticism.
Witch Hunt
Another federal agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has also been redirected—not to combat human trafficking or drug smuggling, but to hunt down students who express solidarity with Palestine. ICE has reportedly paused key investigations so that its agents can monitor social media, tracking and flagging pro-Palestinian students for their posts and likes. This is not law enforcement. This is a witch hunt.
And now, the next step: legal oppression turning into outright state violence.
Trump is prepared to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime measure that allows the president to detain and deport non-citizens without due process.
Under this law, green-card holders, students, spouses of U.S. citizens—anyone without citizenship—can be rounded up and expelled at the president’s discretion. It was designed for times of war, for use against citizens of enemy nations. But Trump is repurposing it, transforming immigration status into a weapon of political control.
And this process has already begun. Trump just deported Rasha Alawieh, a Lebanese transplant specialist and professor at Brown Medicine, a legal resident on a valid H-1B work visa. There was no alleged crime, no hearing, and no due process. A respected doctor was expelled at the stroke of a pen because she fits the regime’s profile of the unwanted.
This is not a legal system. This is ethnic and political cleansing disguised as immigration enforcement.
Who will be targeted? We already know: Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims. Those who have protested, who have spoken out, whose very existence is now treated as subversive. The crackdown is escalating. First slander, then blacklists—now the threat of deportation without trial.
This is how rights are destroyed—not all at once, but in stages, each step paving the way for the next. It begins with one group, then it spreads. Soon, dissent itself is an act of defiance punishable by exile.
Crisis for Democracy
History has already shown us how this unfolds.
McCarthyism began with communists, but it did not stop there. It spread to journalists, academics, labor organizers, civil rights activists—anyone deemed subversive. Lives were destroyed, reputations ruined, entire fields purged of independent thinkers.
The same pattern is unfolding now. It starts with Palestinians, then students, then professors, then journalists, then public figures, then anyone who refuses to pledge unquestioning loyalty to the state of Israel.
Today, it is Palestinians who are denied their humanity. Tomorrow, it is anyone who dares to dissent.
This is not just a crisis for Palestinians. It is a crisis for democracy itself.
Israel and the U.S. were not content with trampling on international law to wage their genocidal war on Gaza. Now they are trampling on hard-won rights and freedoms at home to silence criticism of their war crimes, erode democracy, and criminalize opposition.
They are dismantling free speech in the name of combating antisemitism—when, in reality, they are weaponizing it, reducing it to a political tool. And in doing so, they fuel the very antisemitism they claim to fight, conflating such repression with Israel and Jewishness itself.
The moment we accept that criticism of Israel is a crime, we open the door to something even darker. Today, it is Palestinians who are denied their humanity. Tomorrow, it is anyone who dares to dissent.
Because in a world where the mere act of speaking out is enough to strip you of your rights, your identity, your place in society—then anyone can become Palestinian.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy