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.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan won five more years in office with sweeping new powers after a decisive election victory. (Photo: AP)
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey, began his legitimate political career at the turn of this century with a push for more political pluralism in a Turkey that had long been dominated by an elite, secular military.
Now that he has won another term, Erdogan's rise as an authoritarian strong man is a key lesson to America about how Trump could move the US in a similar direction. Trump's antics on racism and immigration have distracted the American public from the massive numbers of federal judgeships Mitch McConnell is allowing Trump to fill with far right ideologues, after having blocked or run the clock out on Obama appointees. Trump is in a position to shape the officer corps, ensuring that fellow travelers of John Kelly and Jim Mattis take control. Trump is attempting to create public distrust of the print and broadcast media, substituting what is virtually Trump Administration t.v. over at Fox as well as far, far right kooks on the internet like the Breitbar crew and Alex Jones. Trump strongly allied with the Christian religious Right, who are his most reliable constituency. All of these steps were taken by Erdogan, as well, and over time they created an elective dictatorship where civil society is often just banned and there is no free press.
Turkey had had elections from 1950, but its politics were carefully circumscribed to the center-right and center-left. About once a decade the military made a coup, trying to destroy the political left and unions, in which it succeeded by the 1990s. The elite also excluded the Muslim religious Right from legitimate politics, fearing that it would appeal to people in farming towns in the countryside, then the majority of the population, and so would prove able to marginalize the urban, modern, educated elite. When a man of the religious Right became prime minister in 1997, the military shut him down.
Erdogan had those religious Right leanings, but seemed genuinely, once his party began winning elections in 2002, to want more pluralism for Turkey. His party championed joining Europe in hopes that European human rights law would force the Turkish secular elite to relinquish some power and allow his Justice and Development Party freely to contest elections.
Erdogan's party reached out to Turkey's beleaguered Kurdish minority, many of whom were rural and religiously conservative. Its increasing popularity made it possible for Erdogan to forestall any further military coups and to break the power of the secular, arrogant officer corps. He allied with the right wing religious cult, the Gulen Movement, using it to win parliamentary seats and constituencies he might not have won on his own, at least initially.
And then, having regularly won elections, Erdogan abandoned his earlier commitments to pluralism and adopted an increasingly strident rhetoric. His party, once the victim of judicial politics and authoritarian plotting, became increasingly intolerant. He shut down the Gezi Park youth movement in 2013, insisting that civil society activism is illegal and interpreting Turkey's elections as electoral dictatorship (i.e. rulers are elected but then after the election the voters just go back to being sheep who should do as they are told). His ability to instruct the Turkish media not to even cover the protests about turning Gezi Park into a mall (Erdogan is all about malls and mosques, mosques and malls) revealed for the first time how limited had been Turkey's baby steps toward democracy.
In 2015, a new, pro-Kurdish party emerged, the Democratic Peoples' Party, which managed to get some 13% of seats in parliament and to steal voters away from Justice and Development. It reduced Erdogan's party to only about 42%, and interfered with Erdogan's plans for one-party rule and for major constitutional changes to make Turkey a presidential system akin to Putin's Russia.
Personally, I think Erdogan deliberately went to war with the Kurds in order to polarize the country and to discredit the Democratic Peoples' Party. The radical Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) did supply him with a pretext, in attacking Turkish police and soldiers, but it is laughable to identify the civil Democratic Peoples' Party with the PKK, as he essentially did. He gradually had that party's leaders arrested for being pro-Kurdish or just for defying Erdogan. One of them ran for president against him from jail. A hung parliament allowed him to call snap elections later that year (2015), in which his party won a bare majority and so had the way clear to change the constitution.
The following year, perhaps afraid that Erdogan would be unstoppable if left in power much longer, the secretive Gulen moles that Erdogan had helped seed in the military and throughout the Turkish government launched a coup attempt. The whole episode is still murky. Erdogan and Fethullah Gulen (who had been granted asylum in the US in 1998 during the secular military purge of fundamentalists) had used one another to create a winning Muslim Right coalition. Now they had turned on one another.
Erdogan survived the coup, which appears to have convinced him to dismantle Turkish democracy almost entirely. He had hundreds of thousands of people fired from their jobs and tens of thousands imprisoned, simply for belonging to or sympathizing with the Gulen movement (a crime of which he and his own party had been guilty right up to July 2016). He closed entire universities and fired their professors because they had Gulen associations. Most of these actions were based on guilt by association. 200,000 people did not make a coup, and likely most of Erdogan's victims did not even know about it.
Worse, tens of thousands of Erdogan's victims were not even Gulenists. They were just ordinary critics of him and of his party. Some were even leftists. All were purged- fired or blackballed or imprisoned. People who objected to his dirty war in eastern Anatolia against dissident Kurdish villagers were likewise punished. What margin had existed in the press or the universities for criticizing Erdogan and his policies was removed systematically. Dissident or critical professors and journalists were fired or even sent to jail. Wealthy cronies of Erdogan bought up remaining independent media and then sang Erdogan's tune to the public.
Seeking to whip up Sunni-Turkish nationalism, Erdogan invaded both Iraq and Syria, throwing his military weight around in unprecedented ways. The specter of a militarily imperialist Turkey has neighbors worried.
Erdogan then got his constitutional changes in a bid to become president for life. He purged the judiciary and either changed the laws or just got his men to rule the way he wants. He purged the officer corps and the police. He allied with the far right secular nationalist party, which gives him a reliable 66% of the seats in parliament in most elections, but leaves him with at least 58% even when his own party's support falls to 42%. He increasingly has rejiggered the parliamentary system to allow decisions by simple majority, and has even arranged for the president to have so much power that he can overturn legislation he doesn't like at will.
The current election is a sham in which state television did not even bother to broadcast news of enormous rallies conducted by Erdogan's main rival. Just the broadcast media manipulation in favor of Erdogan would be enough to render the election unfair, even if there were not widespread charges of ballot-stuffing.
How Erdogan, over the past 8 years or so, dumped Turkey's democratic experiment and grabbed up power into his greedy hands should be an object lesson to Americans. It can happen here.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey, began his legitimate political career at the turn of this century with a push for more political pluralism in a Turkey that had long been dominated by an elite, secular military.
Now that he has won another term, Erdogan's rise as an authoritarian strong man is a key lesson to America about how Trump could move the US in a similar direction. Trump's antics on racism and immigration have distracted the American public from the massive numbers of federal judgeships Mitch McConnell is allowing Trump to fill with far right ideologues, after having blocked or run the clock out on Obama appointees. Trump is in a position to shape the officer corps, ensuring that fellow travelers of John Kelly and Jim Mattis take control. Trump is attempting to create public distrust of the print and broadcast media, substituting what is virtually Trump Administration t.v. over at Fox as well as far, far right kooks on the internet like the Breitbar crew and Alex Jones. Trump strongly allied with the Christian religious Right, who are his most reliable constituency. All of these steps were taken by Erdogan, as well, and over time they created an elective dictatorship where civil society is often just banned and there is no free press.
Turkey had had elections from 1950, but its politics were carefully circumscribed to the center-right and center-left. About once a decade the military made a coup, trying to destroy the political left and unions, in which it succeeded by the 1990s. The elite also excluded the Muslim religious Right from legitimate politics, fearing that it would appeal to people in farming towns in the countryside, then the majority of the population, and so would prove able to marginalize the urban, modern, educated elite. When a man of the religious Right became prime minister in 1997, the military shut him down.
Erdogan had those religious Right leanings, but seemed genuinely, once his party began winning elections in 2002, to want more pluralism for Turkey. His party championed joining Europe in hopes that European human rights law would force the Turkish secular elite to relinquish some power and allow his Justice and Development Party freely to contest elections.
Erdogan's party reached out to Turkey's beleaguered Kurdish minority, many of whom were rural and religiously conservative. Its increasing popularity made it possible for Erdogan to forestall any further military coups and to break the power of the secular, arrogant officer corps. He allied with the right wing religious cult, the Gulen Movement, using it to win parliamentary seats and constituencies he might not have won on his own, at least initially.
And then, having regularly won elections, Erdogan abandoned his earlier commitments to pluralism and adopted an increasingly strident rhetoric. His party, once the victim of judicial politics and authoritarian plotting, became increasingly intolerant. He shut down the Gezi Park youth movement in 2013, insisting that civil society activism is illegal and interpreting Turkey's elections as electoral dictatorship (i.e. rulers are elected but then after the election the voters just go back to being sheep who should do as they are told). His ability to instruct the Turkish media not to even cover the protests about turning Gezi Park into a mall (Erdogan is all about malls and mosques, mosques and malls) revealed for the first time how limited had been Turkey's baby steps toward democracy.
In 2015, a new, pro-Kurdish party emerged, the Democratic Peoples' Party, which managed to get some 13% of seats in parliament and to steal voters away from Justice and Development. It reduced Erdogan's party to only about 42%, and interfered with Erdogan's plans for one-party rule and for major constitutional changes to make Turkey a presidential system akin to Putin's Russia.
Personally, I think Erdogan deliberately went to war with the Kurds in order to polarize the country and to discredit the Democratic Peoples' Party. The radical Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) did supply him with a pretext, in attacking Turkish police and soldiers, but it is laughable to identify the civil Democratic Peoples' Party with the PKK, as he essentially did. He gradually had that party's leaders arrested for being pro-Kurdish or just for defying Erdogan. One of them ran for president against him from jail. A hung parliament allowed him to call snap elections later that year (2015), in which his party won a bare majority and so had the way clear to change the constitution.
The following year, perhaps afraid that Erdogan would be unstoppable if left in power much longer, the secretive Gulen moles that Erdogan had helped seed in the military and throughout the Turkish government launched a coup attempt. The whole episode is still murky. Erdogan and Fethullah Gulen (who had been granted asylum in the US in 1998 during the secular military purge of fundamentalists) had used one another to create a winning Muslim Right coalition. Now they had turned on one another.
Erdogan survived the coup, which appears to have convinced him to dismantle Turkish democracy almost entirely. He had hundreds of thousands of people fired from their jobs and tens of thousands imprisoned, simply for belonging to or sympathizing with the Gulen movement (a crime of which he and his own party had been guilty right up to July 2016). He closed entire universities and fired their professors because they had Gulen associations. Most of these actions were based on guilt by association. 200,000 people did not make a coup, and likely most of Erdogan's victims did not even know about it.
Worse, tens of thousands of Erdogan's victims were not even Gulenists. They were just ordinary critics of him and of his party. Some were even leftists. All were purged- fired or blackballed or imprisoned. People who objected to his dirty war in eastern Anatolia against dissident Kurdish villagers were likewise punished. What margin had existed in the press or the universities for criticizing Erdogan and his policies was removed systematically. Dissident or critical professors and journalists were fired or even sent to jail. Wealthy cronies of Erdogan bought up remaining independent media and then sang Erdogan's tune to the public.
Seeking to whip up Sunni-Turkish nationalism, Erdogan invaded both Iraq and Syria, throwing his military weight around in unprecedented ways. The specter of a militarily imperialist Turkey has neighbors worried.
Erdogan then got his constitutional changes in a bid to become president for life. He purged the judiciary and either changed the laws or just got his men to rule the way he wants. He purged the officer corps and the police. He allied with the far right secular nationalist party, which gives him a reliable 66% of the seats in parliament in most elections, but leaves him with at least 58% even when his own party's support falls to 42%. He increasingly has rejiggered the parliamentary system to allow decisions by simple majority, and has even arranged for the president to have so much power that he can overturn legislation he doesn't like at will.
The current election is a sham in which state television did not even bother to broadcast news of enormous rallies conducted by Erdogan's main rival. Just the broadcast media manipulation in favor of Erdogan would be enough to render the election unfair, even if there were not widespread charges of ballot-stuffing.
How Erdogan, over the past 8 years or so, dumped Turkey's democratic experiment and grabbed up power into his greedy hands should be an object lesson to Americans. It can happen here.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey, began his legitimate political career at the turn of this century with a push for more political pluralism in a Turkey that had long been dominated by an elite, secular military.
Now that he has won another term, Erdogan's rise as an authoritarian strong man is a key lesson to America about how Trump could move the US in a similar direction. Trump's antics on racism and immigration have distracted the American public from the massive numbers of federal judgeships Mitch McConnell is allowing Trump to fill with far right ideologues, after having blocked or run the clock out on Obama appointees. Trump is in a position to shape the officer corps, ensuring that fellow travelers of John Kelly and Jim Mattis take control. Trump is attempting to create public distrust of the print and broadcast media, substituting what is virtually Trump Administration t.v. over at Fox as well as far, far right kooks on the internet like the Breitbar crew and Alex Jones. Trump strongly allied with the Christian religious Right, who are his most reliable constituency. All of these steps were taken by Erdogan, as well, and over time they created an elective dictatorship where civil society is often just banned and there is no free press.
Turkey had had elections from 1950, but its politics were carefully circumscribed to the center-right and center-left. About once a decade the military made a coup, trying to destroy the political left and unions, in which it succeeded by the 1990s. The elite also excluded the Muslim religious Right from legitimate politics, fearing that it would appeal to people in farming towns in the countryside, then the majority of the population, and so would prove able to marginalize the urban, modern, educated elite. When a man of the religious Right became prime minister in 1997, the military shut him down.
Erdogan had those religious Right leanings, but seemed genuinely, once his party began winning elections in 2002, to want more pluralism for Turkey. His party championed joining Europe in hopes that European human rights law would force the Turkish secular elite to relinquish some power and allow his Justice and Development Party freely to contest elections.
Erdogan's party reached out to Turkey's beleaguered Kurdish minority, many of whom were rural and religiously conservative. Its increasing popularity made it possible for Erdogan to forestall any further military coups and to break the power of the secular, arrogant officer corps. He allied with the right wing religious cult, the Gulen Movement, using it to win parliamentary seats and constituencies he might not have won on his own, at least initially.
And then, having regularly won elections, Erdogan abandoned his earlier commitments to pluralism and adopted an increasingly strident rhetoric. His party, once the victim of judicial politics and authoritarian plotting, became increasingly intolerant. He shut down the Gezi Park youth movement in 2013, insisting that civil society activism is illegal and interpreting Turkey's elections as electoral dictatorship (i.e. rulers are elected but then after the election the voters just go back to being sheep who should do as they are told). His ability to instruct the Turkish media not to even cover the protests about turning Gezi Park into a mall (Erdogan is all about malls and mosques, mosques and malls) revealed for the first time how limited had been Turkey's baby steps toward democracy.
In 2015, a new, pro-Kurdish party emerged, the Democratic Peoples' Party, which managed to get some 13% of seats in parliament and to steal voters away from Justice and Development. It reduced Erdogan's party to only about 42%, and interfered with Erdogan's plans for one-party rule and for major constitutional changes to make Turkey a presidential system akin to Putin's Russia.
Personally, I think Erdogan deliberately went to war with the Kurds in order to polarize the country and to discredit the Democratic Peoples' Party. The radical Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) did supply him with a pretext, in attacking Turkish police and soldiers, but it is laughable to identify the civil Democratic Peoples' Party with the PKK, as he essentially did. He gradually had that party's leaders arrested for being pro-Kurdish or just for defying Erdogan. One of them ran for president against him from jail. A hung parliament allowed him to call snap elections later that year (2015), in which his party won a bare majority and so had the way clear to change the constitution.
The following year, perhaps afraid that Erdogan would be unstoppable if left in power much longer, the secretive Gulen moles that Erdogan had helped seed in the military and throughout the Turkish government launched a coup attempt. The whole episode is still murky. Erdogan and Fethullah Gulen (who had been granted asylum in the US in 1998 during the secular military purge of fundamentalists) had used one another to create a winning Muslim Right coalition. Now they had turned on one another.
Erdogan survived the coup, which appears to have convinced him to dismantle Turkish democracy almost entirely. He had hundreds of thousands of people fired from their jobs and tens of thousands imprisoned, simply for belonging to or sympathizing with the Gulen movement (a crime of which he and his own party had been guilty right up to July 2016). He closed entire universities and fired their professors because they had Gulen associations. Most of these actions were based on guilt by association. 200,000 people did not make a coup, and likely most of Erdogan's victims did not even know about it.
Worse, tens of thousands of Erdogan's victims were not even Gulenists. They were just ordinary critics of him and of his party. Some were even leftists. All were purged- fired or blackballed or imprisoned. People who objected to his dirty war in eastern Anatolia against dissident Kurdish villagers were likewise punished. What margin had existed in the press or the universities for criticizing Erdogan and his policies was removed systematically. Dissident or critical professors and journalists were fired or even sent to jail. Wealthy cronies of Erdogan bought up remaining independent media and then sang Erdogan's tune to the public.
Seeking to whip up Sunni-Turkish nationalism, Erdogan invaded both Iraq and Syria, throwing his military weight around in unprecedented ways. The specter of a militarily imperialist Turkey has neighbors worried.
Erdogan then got his constitutional changes in a bid to become president for life. He purged the judiciary and either changed the laws or just got his men to rule the way he wants. He purged the officer corps and the police. He allied with the far right secular nationalist party, which gives him a reliable 66% of the seats in parliament in most elections, but leaves him with at least 58% even when his own party's support falls to 42%. He increasingly has rejiggered the parliamentary system to allow decisions by simple majority, and has even arranged for the president to have so much power that he can overturn legislation he doesn't like at will.
The current election is a sham in which state television did not even bother to broadcast news of enormous rallies conducted by Erdogan's main rival. Just the broadcast media manipulation in favor of Erdogan would be enough to render the election unfair, even if there were not widespread charges of ballot-stuffing.
How Erdogan, over the past 8 years or so, dumped Turkey's democratic experiment and grabbed up power into his greedy hands should be an object lesson to Americans. It can happen here.
One critic accused the president of "testing the limits of his power, hoping to intimidate other cities into submission to his every vengeful whim."
The Trump administration's military occupation of Washington, D.C. is expected to expand, a White House official said Wednesday, with President Donald Trump also saying he will ask Congress to approve a "long-term" extension of federal control over local police in the nation's capital.
The unnamed Trump official told CNN that a "significantly higher" number of National Guard troops are expected on the ground in Washington later Wednesday to support law enforcement patrols in the city.
"The National Guard is not arresting people," the official said, adding that troops are tasked with creating "a safe environment" for the hundreds of federal officers and agents from over a dozen agencies who are fanning out across the city over the strong objection of local officials.
Trump dubiously declared a public safety emergency Monday in order to take control of Washington police under Section 740 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act. The president said Wednesday that he would ask the Republican-controlled Congress to authorize an extension of his federal takeover of local police beyond the 30 days allowed under Section 740.
"Already they're saying, 'He's a dictator,'" Trump said of his critics during remarks at the Kennedy Center in Washington. "The place is going to hell. We've got to stop it. So instead of saying, 'He's a dictator,' they should say, 'We're going to join him and make Washington safe.'"
According to official statistics, violent crime in Washington is down 26% from a year ago, when it was at its second-lowest level since 1966,
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) have both expressed support for Trump's actions. However, any legislation authorizing an extension of federal control over local police would face an uphill battle in the Senate, where Democratic lawmakers can employ procedural rules to block the majority's effort.
Trump also said any congressional authorization could open the door to targeting other cities in his crosshairs, including Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Oakland. Official statistics show violent crime trending downward in all of those cities—with some registering historically low levels.
While some critics have called Trump's actions in Washington a distraction from his administration's mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, others say his occupation of the nation's capital is a test case to see what he can get away with in other cities.
Kat Abughazaleh, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Illinois, said Monday that the president's D.C. takeover "is another telltale sign of his authoritarian ambitions."
Some opponents also said Trump's actions are intended to intimidate Democrat-controlled cities, pointing to his June order to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against his administration's mass deportation campaign.
Testifying Wednesday at a San Francisco trial to determine whether Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878—which generally prohibits use of the military for domestic law enforcement—by sending troops to Los Angeles, California Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong argued that the president wanted to "strike fear into the hearts of Californians."
Roosevelt University political science professor and Newsweek contributor David Faris wrote Wednesday that "deploying the National Guard to Washington, D.C. is an unconscionable abuse of federal power and another worrisome signpost on our road to autocracy."
"Using the military to bring big, blue cities to heel, exactly as 'alarmists' predicted during the 2024 campaign, isn't about a crisis in D.C.—violent crime is actually at a 30-year low," he added. "President Trump is, once again, testing the limits of his power, hoping to intimidate other cities into submission to his every vengeful whim by making the once unimaginable—an American tyrant ordering a military occupation of our own capital—a terrifying reality."
"Underneath shiny motherhood medals and promises of baby bonuses is a movement intent on elevating white supremacist ideology and forcing women out of the workplace," said one advocate.
The Trump administration's push for Americans to have more children has been well documented, from Vice President JD Vance's insults aimed at "childless cat ladies" to officials' meetings with "pronatalist" advocates who want to boost U.S. birth rates, which have been declining since 2007.
But a report released by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) on Wednesday details how the methods the White House have reportedly considered to convince Americans to procreate moremay be described by the far right as "pro-family," but are actually being pushed by a eugenicist, misogynist movement that has little interest in making it any easier to raise a family in the United States.
The proposals include bestowing a "National Medal of Motherhood" on women who have more than six children, giving a $5,000 "baby bonus" to new parents, and prioritizing federal projects in areas with high birth rates.
"Underneath shiny motherhood medals and promises of baby bonuses is a movement intent on elevating white supremacist ideology and forcing women out of the workplace," said Emily Martin, chief program officer of the National Women's Law Center.
The report describes how "Silicon Valley tech elites" and traditional conservatives who oppose abortion rights and even a woman's right to work outside the home have converged to push for "preserving the traditional family structure while encouraging women to have a lot of children."
With pronatalists often referring to "declining genetic quality" in the U.S. and promoting the idea that Americans must produce "good quality children," in the words of evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman, the pronatalist movement "is built on racist, sexist, and anti-immigrant ideologies."
If conservatives are concerned about population loss in the U.S., the report points out, they would "make it easier for immigrants to come to the United States to live and work. More immigrants mean more workers, which would address some of the economic concerns raised by declining birth rates."
But pronatalists "only want to see certain populations increase (i.e., white people), and there are many immigrants who don't fit into that narrow qualification."
The report, titled "Baby Bonuses and Motherhood Medals: Why We Shouldn't Trust the Pronatalist Movement," describes how President Donald Trump has enlisted a "pronatalist army" that's been instrumental both in pushing a virulently anti-immigrant, mass deportation agenda and in demanding that more straight couples should marry and have children, as the right-wing policy playbook Project 2025 demands.
Trump's former adviser and benefactor, billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, has spoken frequently about the need to prevent a collapse of U.S. society and civilization by raising birth rates, and has pushed misinformation fearmongering about birth control.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy proposed rewarding areas with high birth rates by prioritizing infrastructure projects, and like Vance has lobbed insults at single women while also deriding the use of contraception.
The report was released days after CNN detailed the close ties the Trump administration has with self-described Christian nationalist pastor Doug Wilson, who heads the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, preaches that women should not vote, and suggested in an interview with correspondent Pamela Brown that women's primary function is birthing children, saying they are "the kind of people that people come out of."
Wilson has ties to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose children attend schools founded by the pastor and who shared the video online with the tagline of Wilson's church, "All of Christ for All of Life."
But the NWLC noted, no amount of haranguing women over their relationship status, plans for childbearing, or insistence that they are primarily meant to stay at home with "four or five children," as Wilson said, can reverse the impact the Trump administration's policies have had on families.
"While the Trump administration claims to be pursuing a pro-baby agenda, their actions tell a different story," the report notes. "Rather than advancing policies that would actually support families—like lowering costs, expanding access to housing and food, or investing in child care—they've prioritized dismantling basic need supports, rolling back longstanding civil rights protections, and ripping away people's bodily autonomy."
The report was published weeks after Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law—making pregnancy more expensive and more dangerous for millions of low-income women by slashing Medicaid funding and "endangering the 42 million women and children" who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for their daily meals.
While demanding that women have more children, said the NWLC, Trump has pushed an "anti-women, anti-family agenda."
Martin said that unlike the pronatalist movement, "a real pro-family agenda would include protecting reproductive healthcare, investing in childcare as a public good, promoting workplace policies that enable parents to succeed, and ensuring that all children have the resources that they need to thrive not just at birth, but throughout their lives."
"The administration's deep hostility toward these pro-family policies," said Martin, "tells you all that you need to know about pronatalists' true motives.”
A Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer called on Kathy Jennings to "use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza."
A leading U.S. legal advocacy group on Wednesday urged Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings to pursue revoking the corporate charter of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, whose aid distribution points in the embattled Palestinian enclave have been the sites of near-daily massacres in which thousands of Palestinians have reportedly been killed or wounded.
Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) urgently requested a meeting with Jennings, a Democrat, whom the group asserted has a legal obligation to file suit in the state's Chancery Court to seek revocation of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's (GHF) charter because the purported charity "is complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide."
CCR said Wednesday that Jennings "has neither responded" to the group's request "nor publicly addressed the serious claims raised against the Delaware-registered entity."
"GHF woefully fails to adhere to fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence and has proven to be an opportunistic and obsequious entity masquerading as a humanitarian organization," CCR asserted. "Since the start of its operations in late May, at least 1,400 Palestinians have died seeking aid, with at least 859 killed at or near GHF sites, which it operates in close coordination with the Israeli government and U.S. private military contractors."
One of those contractors, former U.S. Army Green Beret Col. Anthony Aguilar, quit his job and blew the whistle on what he said he saw while working at GHF aid sites.
"What I saw on the sites, around the sites, to and from the sites, can be described as nothing but war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of international law," Aguilar told Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman earlier this month. "This is not hyperbole. This is not platitudes or drama. This is the truth... The sites were designed to lure, bait aid, and kill."
Israel Defense Forces officers and soldiers have admitted to receiving orders to open fire on Palestinian aid-seekers with live bullets and artillery rounds, even when the civilians posed no security threat.
"It is against this backdrop that [President Donald] Trump's State Department approved a $30 million United States Agency for International Development grant for GHF," CCR noted. "In so doing, the State Department exempted it from the audit usually required for new USAID grantees."
"It also waived mandatory counterterrorism and anti-fraud safeguards and overrode vetting mechanisms, including 58 internal objections to GHF's application," the group added. "The Center for Constitutional Rights has submitted a [Freedom of Information Act] request seeking information on the administration's funding of GHF."
CCR continued:
The letter to Jennings opens a new front in the effort to hold GHF accountable. The Center for Constitutional Rights letter provides extensive evidence that, far from alleviating suffering in Gaza, GHF is contributing to the forced displacement, illegal killing, and genocide of Palestinians, while serving as a fig leaf for Israel's continued denial of access to food and water. Given this, Jennings has not only the authority, but the obligation to investigate GHF to determine if it abused its charter by engaging in unlawful activity. She may then file suit with the Court of Chancery, which has the authority to revoke GHF's charter.
CCR's August 5 letter notes that Jennings has previously exercised such authority. In 2019, she filed suit to dissolve shell companies affiliated with former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Richard Gates after they pleaded guilty to money laundering and other crimes.
"Attorney General Jennings has the power to significantly change the course of history and save lives by taking action to dissolve GHF," said CCR attorney Adina Marx-Arpadi. "We call on her to use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza, and to do so without delay."
CCR's request follows a call earlier this month by a group of United Nations experts for the "immediate dismantling" of GHF, as well as "holding it and its executives accountable and allowing experienced and humanitarian actors from the U.N. and civil society alike to take back the reins of managing and distributing lifesaving aid."