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.
Major General Chris Donahue, commander of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division, XVIII Airborne Corps, boards a C-17 cargo plane at the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan to become the final U.S. soldier to depart Afghanistan. (Photo: CENTCOM / U.S. Dept. of Defense)
Sunday, October 7, 2001: Less than a month after 9/11, President George W. Bush announces to the world, "On my orders the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime... We are supported by the collective will of the world.
My then-wife and I watched Bush on TV from our downtown Manhattan apartment, just two miles from Ground Zero. On September 11, we had stood on the corner watching the World Trade Center burn.
After Bush spoke, we walked up the street to a restaurant owned by friends. Despite the recent fatal cataclysm, it was raucous and bustling, the bar and Sunday brunch crowd filling the place. A TV above the bar was tuned to CNN.
We had just gotten our table when suddenly, the entire joint fell silent, as if a switch had been flipped, a phenomenon I have never witnessed before or since.
Osama bin Laden was on the TV screen responding to Bush. As he spoke, it felt like the air had been sucked out of the entire restaurant:
God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims, the forefront of Islam, to destroy America. May God bless them and allot them a supreme place in heaven, for he is the only one capable and entitled to do so.
And so it began. The White House and Pentagon said it would be a quick push into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government and hunt down bin Laden and al Qaeda--those responsible for directing the 9/11 attacks, and the Afghan regime that had hosted them. But what we were told would be just a few months turned into years and years, two decades worth, America's longest war. More than 2500 of our military are dead, including the 13 who died in Thursday's suicide bomber attack (along with scores of civilians). A reported more than 240,000 Afghans have been killed. And a financial price tag for the United States of $300 million a day.
Had we stuck to what allegedly was the original plan, or not have done it at all, with some mental acrobatics it's conceivable things somehow might have been different. Instead, we made another attempt at "nation-building," in theory a lovely vision of bringing democracy to others but usually disastrous in execution.
And yet, amidst the death and bitter recrimination, we saw some positive results of that attempt to build: foremost, the education of women and children and the loosening of many cultural, sexist, fanatical restrictions.
A filmmaker friend produced a moving documentary about the return of indigenous music to Afghanistan and the joy and hope that accompanied it. My sister-in-law worked for more than a decade with Afghan women judges; many had been removed from the bench by the Taliban in the 1990's. Because written laws and law books had been destroyed, judges had to work with older male judges to even remember what the former laws were.
Early on, women judges developed programs for high school girls and their teachers to explain their rights under the new Afghan constitution, including their right to an education and not to be married off at ages 12 or 14. During the past 20 years, these same girls have been able to study law and become lawyers, prosecutors and judges themselves.
Now they're in peril and all the advances they have made are in doubt. In a press statement shortly before the fall of Kabul, New Zealand Justice Susan Glazebrook, president of the International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ) wrote, "By serving as judges and helping develop the Afghan judicial branch, women judges have helped establish the rule of law in their country.... Allowing them to be at the mercy of the Taliban and insurgent groups, given what they have sacrificed, would be tragic indeed."
The images from Kabul, the crowds clamoring for escape, terrorist attacks on the airport and counterattacks are frightening and soul wrenching. The future is unknown but the immediate aftereffects of our withdrawal from that country doubtless will be bleak.
A doctor I know who once worked in a children's hospital there, the head of which survived a Taliban assassination attempt, told me over the weekend that as far as he could tell, it's primarily the Pashtun members of the Taliban who have been seen swinging chains and screaming at women to cover their faces--that the current Taliban heads are from the northern and central portions of the country and more rational--comparatively. But how long that could last is yet another enormous uncertainty. On Sunday, the Taliban's minster of higher education announced a ban on co-education and that men are not allowed to teach women; all schooling must conform with Sharia law.
That the American experience in Afghanistan has been such an omnishambles should not come as a surprise to anyone who's even a little familiar with the history of British and Russian involvement there; they don't call it "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.
"Certain themes are consistent across the distance of a century," Washington Post columnist David Von Drehle recently wrote.
There's the near-impossibility of creating a strong central government in a land of tribes and clans. There are the constantly shifting allegiances and temporary alliances. There's the fierce skepticism and outright hostility of the uneducated majority toward the educated elite. There's the infinitely porous frontier that makes Afghanistan a part of Pakistan and Pakistan a part of Afghanistan in a tangle of intrigues too ancient and too complex to be unraveled. There is the tendency of outside powers to play Afghan pawns in their global chess games.
One cannot say whether greater awareness of this history would have revealed a path to success for the authors of the American story in Afghanistan. Certainly, it would have made them more cautious, more circumspect. It might even have made them sympathize with the U.S. leaders who would eventually have to write an ending to the tale. More wisdom in the beginning could have meant less catastrophe at the end.
Writing at Foreign Affairs magazine way back in 2020, just before the pandemic struck, historian and former senior adviser to the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Carter Malkasian, noted:
Underneath these factors, something more fundamental was at play. The Taliban exemplified an idea--an idea that runs deep in Afghan culture, that inspired their fighters, that made them powerful in battle, and that, in the eyes of many Afghans, defines an individual's worth. In simple terms, that idea is resistance to occupation. The very presence of Americans in Afghanistan was an assault on what it meant to be Afghan. It inspired Afghans to defend their honor, their religion, and their homeland. The importance of this cultural factor has been confirmed and reconfirmed by multiple surveys of Taliban fighters since 2007 conducted by a range of researchers.
The Afghan government, tainted by its alignment with foreign occupiers, could not inspire the same devotion.
And so Joe Biden had to face a difficult choice: keep US and NATO troops in-country for an unknowable number of years, risking more American and Afghan lives to maintain a shaky, corrupt government in a nation riven for centuries by tribal rivalries. Or cut loose and send our people home.
Blood would further spill no matter which he chose but by leaving, American blood will no longer soak Afghan soil. Charges will be made and Republicans will demand Benghazi-style congressional hearings, conveniently ignoring the deal made with the Taliban by their former guy in the White House--the man who told supporters, "We're cleaning up the mess... and with time, we'll have it spinning like a top." Spinning being the operative word.
Questions are valid about misleading progress reports over the years, flawed military planning for the evacuation and the intelligence reports that seem to have misread the speed with which the Afghan government collapsed. Valid, too, is praise for the speed and efficiency with which, after initial missteps, the United States flew more than 123,000 Americans and Afghans to safety (although leaving behind many Afghans who had assisted our forces). What isn't valid is trying to make political hay from a horrific situation and ignoring the actions of Biden's immediate predecessors, including Barack Obama and Republicans Trump and Bush, the man who gave the initial orders for invasion.
As Richard Stengel, former Time magazine editor and Obama undersecretary of state, tweeted on Monday, "Blaming Biden for Afghanistan is like saying the last batter in a 9-inning 10-to-nothing rout was responsible for the loss." There is plenty of blame to go around and the loss of innocent lives continues, but Biden at least has withdrawn us from a war that was lost long ago.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function was the mark of "a first-rate intelligence." I can't attest to that first-rate intelligence part, but I do hold the opposed ideas that it's good for us to get out while simultaneously fearing the fate of the Afghan civilians left behind, especially the women and kids who learned to read, write, and move about freely while religious extremists no longer ran their country like a theocracy. So heartbreaking, and a bit like that moment in October 2001 when we watched bin Laden vow to destroy America: it takes your breath away.
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. |
Sunday, October 7, 2001: Less than a month after 9/11, President George W. Bush announces to the world, "On my orders the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime... We are supported by the collective will of the world.
My then-wife and I watched Bush on TV from our downtown Manhattan apartment, just two miles from Ground Zero. On September 11, we had stood on the corner watching the World Trade Center burn.
After Bush spoke, we walked up the street to a restaurant owned by friends. Despite the recent fatal cataclysm, it was raucous and bustling, the bar and Sunday brunch crowd filling the place. A TV above the bar was tuned to CNN.
We had just gotten our table when suddenly, the entire joint fell silent, as if a switch had been flipped, a phenomenon I have never witnessed before or since.
Osama bin Laden was on the TV screen responding to Bush. As he spoke, it felt like the air had been sucked out of the entire restaurant:
God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims, the forefront of Islam, to destroy America. May God bless them and allot them a supreme place in heaven, for he is the only one capable and entitled to do so.
And so it began. The White House and Pentagon said it would be a quick push into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government and hunt down bin Laden and al Qaeda--those responsible for directing the 9/11 attacks, and the Afghan regime that had hosted them. But what we were told would be just a few months turned into years and years, two decades worth, America's longest war. More than 2500 of our military are dead, including the 13 who died in Thursday's suicide bomber attack (along with scores of civilians). A reported more than 240,000 Afghans have been killed. And a financial price tag for the United States of $300 million a day.
Had we stuck to what allegedly was the original plan, or not have done it at all, with some mental acrobatics it's conceivable things somehow might have been different. Instead, we made another attempt at "nation-building," in theory a lovely vision of bringing democracy to others but usually disastrous in execution.
And yet, amidst the death and bitter recrimination, we saw some positive results of that attempt to build: foremost, the education of women and children and the loosening of many cultural, sexist, fanatical restrictions.
A filmmaker friend produced a moving documentary about the return of indigenous music to Afghanistan and the joy and hope that accompanied it. My sister-in-law worked for more than a decade with Afghan women judges; many had been removed from the bench by the Taliban in the 1990's. Because written laws and law books had been destroyed, judges had to work with older male judges to even remember what the former laws were.
Early on, women judges developed programs for high school girls and their teachers to explain their rights under the new Afghan constitution, including their right to an education and not to be married off at ages 12 or 14. During the past 20 years, these same girls have been able to study law and become lawyers, prosecutors and judges themselves.
Now they're in peril and all the advances they have made are in doubt. In a press statement shortly before the fall of Kabul, New Zealand Justice Susan Glazebrook, president of the International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ) wrote, "By serving as judges and helping develop the Afghan judicial branch, women judges have helped establish the rule of law in their country.... Allowing them to be at the mercy of the Taliban and insurgent groups, given what they have sacrificed, would be tragic indeed."
The images from Kabul, the crowds clamoring for escape, terrorist attacks on the airport and counterattacks are frightening and soul wrenching. The future is unknown but the immediate aftereffects of our withdrawal from that country doubtless will be bleak.
A doctor I know who once worked in a children's hospital there, the head of which survived a Taliban assassination attempt, told me over the weekend that as far as he could tell, it's primarily the Pashtun members of the Taliban who have been seen swinging chains and screaming at women to cover their faces--that the current Taliban heads are from the northern and central portions of the country and more rational--comparatively. But how long that could last is yet another enormous uncertainty. On Sunday, the Taliban's minster of higher education announced a ban on co-education and that men are not allowed to teach women; all schooling must conform with Sharia law.
That the American experience in Afghanistan has been such an omnishambles should not come as a surprise to anyone who's even a little familiar with the history of British and Russian involvement there; they don't call it "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.
"Certain themes are consistent across the distance of a century," Washington Post columnist David Von Drehle recently wrote.
There's the near-impossibility of creating a strong central government in a land of tribes and clans. There are the constantly shifting allegiances and temporary alliances. There's the fierce skepticism and outright hostility of the uneducated majority toward the educated elite. There's the infinitely porous frontier that makes Afghanistan a part of Pakistan and Pakistan a part of Afghanistan in a tangle of intrigues too ancient and too complex to be unraveled. There is the tendency of outside powers to play Afghan pawns in their global chess games.
One cannot say whether greater awareness of this history would have revealed a path to success for the authors of the American story in Afghanistan. Certainly, it would have made them more cautious, more circumspect. It might even have made them sympathize with the U.S. leaders who would eventually have to write an ending to the tale. More wisdom in the beginning could have meant less catastrophe at the end.
Writing at Foreign Affairs magazine way back in 2020, just before the pandemic struck, historian and former senior adviser to the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Carter Malkasian, noted:
Underneath these factors, something more fundamental was at play. The Taliban exemplified an idea--an idea that runs deep in Afghan culture, that inspired their fighters, that made them powerful in battle, and that, in the eyes of many Afghans, defines an individual's worth. In simple terms, that idea is resistance to occupation. The very presence of Americans in Afghanistan was an assault on what it meant to be Afghan. It inspired Afghans to defend their honor, their religion, and their homeland. The importance of this cultural factor has been confirmed and reconfirmed by multiple surveys of Taliban fighters since 2007 conducted by a range of researchers.
The Afghan government, tainted by its alignment with foreign occupiers, could not inspire the same devotion.
And so Joe Biden had to face a difficult choice: keep US and NATO troops in-country for an unknowable number of years, risking more American and Afghan lives to maintain a shaky, corrupt government in a nation riven for centuries by tribal rivalries. Or cut loose and send our people home.
Blood would further spill no matter which he chose but by leaving, American blood will no longer soak Afghan soil. Charges will be made and Republicans will demand Benghazi-style congressional hearings, conveniently ignoring the deal made with the Taliban by their former guy in the White House--the man who told supporters, "We're cleaning up the mess... and with time, we'll have it spinning like a top." Spinning being the operative word.
Questions are valid about misleading progress reports over the years, flawed military planning for the evacuation and the intelligence reports that seem to have misread the speed with which the Afghan government collapsed. Valid, too, is praise for the speed and efficiency with which, after initial missteps, the United States flew more than 123,000 Americans and Afghans to safety (although leaving behind many Afghans who had assisted our forces). What isn't valid is trying to make political hay from a horrific situation and ignoring the actions of Biden's immediate predecessors, including Barack Obama and Republicans Trump and Bush, the man who gave the initial orders for invasion.
As Richard Stengel, former Time magazine editor and Obama undersecretary of state, tweeted on Monday, "Blaming Biden for Afghanistan is like saying the last batter in a 9-inning 10-to-nothing rout was responsible for the loss." There is plenty of blame to go around and the loss of innocent lives continues, but Biden at least has withdrawn us from a war that was lost long ago.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function was the mark of "a first-rate intelligence." I can't attest to that first-rate intelligence part, but I do hold the opposed ideas that it's good for us to get out while simultaneously fearing the fate of the Afghan civilians left behind, especially the women and kids who learned to read, write, and move about freely while religious extremists no longer ran their country like a theocracy. So heartbreaking, and a bit like that moment in October 2001 when we watched bin Laden vow to destroy America: it takes your breath away.
Sunday, October 7, 2001: Less than a month after 9/11, President George W. Bush announces to the world, "On my orders the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime... We are supported by the collective will of the world.
My then-wife and I watched Bush on TV from our downtown Manhattan apartment, just two miles from Ground Zero. On September 11, we had stood on the corner watching the World Trade Center burn.
After Bush spoke, we walked up the street to a restaurant owned by friends. Despite the recent fatal cataclysm, it was raucous and bustling, the bar and Sunday brunch crowd filling the place. A TV above the bar was tuned to CNN.
We had just gotten our table when suddenly, the entire joint fell silent, as if a switch had been flipped, a phenomenon I have never witnessed before or since.
Osama bin Laden was on the TV screen responding to Bush. As he spoke, it felt like the air had been sucked out of the entire restaurant:
God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims, the forefront of Islam, to destroy America. May God bless them and allot them a supreme place in heaven, for he is the only one capable and entitled to do so.
And so it began. The White House and Pentagon said it would be a quick push into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government and hunt down bin Laden and al Qaeda--those responsible for directing the 9/11 attacks, and the Afghan regime that had hosted them. But what we were told would be just a few months turned into years and years, two decades worth, America's longest war. More than 2500 of our military are dead, including the 13 who died in Thursday's suicide bomber attack (along with scores of civilians). A reported more than 240,000 Afghans have been killed. And a financial price tag for the United States of $300 million a day.
Had we stuck to what allegedly was the original plan, or not have done it at all, with some mental acrobatics it's conceivable things somehow might have been different. Instead, we made another attempt at "nation-building," in theory a lovely vision of bringing democracy to others but usually disastrous in execution.
And yet, amidst the death and bitter recrimination, we saw some positive results of that attempt to build: foremost, the education of women and children and the loosening of many cultural, sexist, fanatical restrictions.
A filmmaker friend produced a moving documentary about the return of indigenous music to Afghanistan and the joy and hope that accompanied it. My sister-in-law worked for more than a decade with Afghan women judges; many had been removed from the bench by the Taliban in the 1990's. Because written laws and law books had been destroyed, judges had to work with older male judges to even remember what the former laws were.
Early on, women judges developed programs for high school girls and their teachers to explain their rights under the new Afghan constitution, including their right to an education and not to be married off at ages 12 or 14. During the past 20 years, these same girls have been able to study law and become lawyers, prosecutors and judges themselves.
Now they're in peril and all the advances they have made are in doubt. In a press statement shortly before the fall of Kabul, New Zealand Justice Susan Glazebrook, president of the International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ) wrote, "By serving as judges and helping develop the Afghan judicial branch, women judges have helped establish the rule of law in their country.... Allowing them to be at the mercy of the Taliban and insurgent groups, given what they have sacrificed, would be tragic indeed."
The images from Kabul, the crowds clamoring for escape, terrorist attacks on the airport and counterattacks are frightening and soul wrenching. The future is unknown but the immediate aftereffects of our withdrawal from that country doubtless will be bleak.
A doctor I know who once worked in a children's hospital there, the head of which survived a Taliban assassination attempt, told me over the weekend that as far as he could tell, it's primarily the Pashtun members of the Taliban who have been seen swinging chains and screaming at women to cover their faces--that the current Taliban heads are from the northern and central portions of the country and more rational--comparatively. But how long that could last is yet another enormous uncertainty. On Sunday, the Taliban's minster of higher education announced a ban on co-education and that men are not allowed to teach women; all schooling must conform with Sharia law.
That the American experience in Afghanistan has been such an omnishambles should not come as a surprise to anyone who's even a little familiar with the history of British and Russian involvement there; they don't call it "the graveyard of empires" for nothing.
"Certain themes are consistent across the distance of a century," Washington Post columnist David Von Drehle recently wrote.
There's the near-impossibility of creating a strong central government in a land of tribes and clans. There are the constantly shifting allegiances and temporary alliances. There's the fierce skepticism and outright hostility of the uneducated majority toward the educated elite. There's the infinitely porous frontier that makes Afghanistan a part of Pakistan and Pakistan a part of Afghanistan in a tangle of intrigues too ancient and too complex to be unraveled. There is the tendency of outside powers to play Afghan pawns in their global chess games.
One cannot say whether greater awareness of this history would have revealed a path to success for the authors of the American story in Afghanistan. Certainly, it would have made them more cautious, more circumspect. It might even have made them sympathize with the U.S. leaders who would eventually have to write an ending to the tale. More wisdom in the beginning could have meant less catastrophe at the end.
Writing at Foreign Affairs magazine way back in 2020, just before the pandemic struck, historian and former senior adviser to the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Carter Malkasian, noted:
Underneath these factors, something more fundamental was at play. The Taliban exemplified an idea--an idea that runs deep in Afghan culture, that inspired their fighters, that made them powerful in battle, and that, in the eyes of many Afghans, defines an individual's worth. In simple terms, that idea is resistance to occupation. The very presence of Americans in Afghanistan was an assault on what it meant to be Afghan. It inspired Afghans to defend their honor, their religion, and their homeland. The importance of this cultural factor has been confirmed and reconfirmed by multiple surveys of Taliban fighters since 2007 conducted by a range of researchers.
The Afghan government, tainted by its alignment with foreign occupiers, could not inspire the same devotion.
And so Joe Biden had to face a difficult choice: keep US and NATO troops in-country for an unknowable number of years, risking more American and Afghan lives to maintain a shaky, corrupt government in a nation riven for centuries by tribal rivalries. Or cut loose and send our people home.
Blood would further spill no matter which he chose but by leaving, American blood will no longer soak Afghan soil. Charges will be made and Republicans will demand Benghazi-style congressional hearings, conveniently ignoring the deal made with the Taliban by their former guy in the White House--the man who told supporters, "We're cleaning up the mess... and with time, we'll have it spinning like a top." Spinning being the operative word.
Questions are valid about misleading progress reports over the years, flawed military planning for the evacuation and the intelligence reports that seem to have misread the speed with which the Afghan government collapsed. Valid, too, is praise for the speed and efficiency with which, after initial missteps, the United States flew more than 123,000 Americans and Afghans to safety (although leaving behind many Afghans who had assisted our forces). What isn't valid is trying to make political hay from a horrific situation and ignoring the actions of Biden's immediate predecessors, including Barack Obama and Republicans Trump and Bush, the man who gave the initial orders for invasion.
As Richard Stengel, former Time magazine editor and Obama undersecretary of state, tweeted on Monday, "Blaming Biden for Afghanistan is like saying the last batter in a 9-inning 10-to-nothing rout was responsible for the loss." There is plenty of blame to go around and the loss of innocent lives continues, but Biden at least has withdrawn us from a war that was lost long ago.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function was the mark of "a first-rate intelligence." I can't attest to that first-rate intelligence part, but I do hold the opposed ideas that it's good for us to get out while simultaneously fearing the fate of the Afghan civilians left behind, especially the women and kids who learned to read, write, and move about freely while religious extremists no longer ran their country like a theocracy. So heartbreaking, and a bit like that moment in October 2001 when we watched bin Laden vow to destroy America: it takes your breath away.
"Emergency powers are the lifeblood of authoritarians," said a former Republican congressman.
U.S. President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday he may declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and continue his military occupation of Washington, D.C. indefinitely.
Under the Home Rule Act, the president is allowed to unilaterally take control of law enforcement in the nation's capital for 30 days. After that, Congress must extend its authorization through a joint resolution.
The authorization would need 60 votes to break the Senate filibuster, meaning some Democrats would need to sign on. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said there's "no fucking way" they would, adding that some Republicans would likely vote against it as well.
During a speech at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, Trump said that if Congress won't approve his indefinite deployment of the National Guard, he'll just invoke emergency powers.
"If it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress, but we expect to be before Congress very quickly," Trump said.
"I don't want to call a national emergency," Trump said, before adding, "If I have to, I will."
Announcing his federal takeover of the D.C. police, Trump said he would authorize the cops to "do whatever the hell they want" when patrolling the city.
On Wednesday, a day after troops deployed to D.C., federal agents set up a security checkpoint on the busy 14th Street Northwest Corridor, where Newsweek reports that they have been conducting random stops, which have previously been ruled unconstitutional.
One eyewitness described seeing agents "in unmarked cars without badges pulling people out of their cars and taking them away."
Other similar scenes of what appear to be random and arbitrary stops and arrests have been documented around the city.
"President Trump fabricated the 'emergency' that's required to exist for a president to federalize D.C. Police," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's nonvoting congressional delegate on X. "He admitted to reporters today that he's willing to fabricate a national emergency in order to try to extend his power."
It would not be the first time Trump called a national emergency in an attempt to suspend the usual checks on his power.
In 2019—despite border crossings being at historic lows—he declared a national emergency to reroute billions of dollars to construct his border wall after Congress refused to approve it. He has also declared a national emergency at the U.S. border.
He has used national emergency declarations even more liberally in his second term, including to send U.S. troops to the Southern border, to expedite oil drilling projects, and to enact extreme tariffs without congressional approval.
According to Joseph Nunn, a legal scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice, Trump is already abusing the language of the Home Rule Act, which only allows D.C. law enforcement to be federalized in "special conditions of an emergency nature."
Though the law does not explicitly define what constitutes a "national emergency," Nunn says, "the word 'emergency' has meaning. An emergency is a sudden crisis, an unexpected change in circumstances." That would be at odds with the facts on the ground in D.C., where crime has fallen dramatically over the past year.
After Trump floated using a national emergency to extend his occupation of D.C., Justin Amash—a former Republican congressman who was ousted in 2021 after breaking with Trump—wrote on X that "emergency powers are the lifeblood of authoritarians."
"Once established in law, they're nearly impossible to revoke because a president can veto any bill curtailing the power," Amash said. "We always live under dozens of active 'national emergencies,' almost none of which are true emergencies."
Trump also said he was working with congressional Republicans on a "crime bill" that will "pertain initially to D.C." but will be expanded to apply to other blue cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Despite Trump's portrayal of these cities as crime-ridden hellscapes, crime is falling in every single one of them.
"What Donald Trump is doing is, in some ways, a dress rehearsal for going after others around the country. And I think we need to stop this—certainly by the end of the 30 days," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "This should never have started, so I definitely want to make sure it doesn't continue."
The Palestinian foreign ministry called the E1 plan "an extension of crimes of genocide, displacement, and annexation."
One of Israel's biggest proponents of breaking international law by expanding settlements in the West Bank claimed Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Trump administration have both given their approval for an expansion scheme that has been blocked for decades and that threatens the possibility of ever establishing a Palestinian state.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich held up a map showing a corridor known as E1, which would link Jerusalem to the settlement of Maale Adumim, at a press conference in the illegal settlement where he proclaimed that the proposal "buries the idea of a Palestinian state."
"This is Zionism at its best—building, settling, and strengthening our sovereignty in the Land of Israel," said Smotrich. "This reality finally buries the idea of a Palestinian state, because there is nothing to recognize and no one to recognize. Anyone in the world who tries today to recognize a Palestinian state will receive an answer from us on the ground."
The announcement followed recent statements from leaders in France, the United Kingdom, and Canada saying they were prepared to join the vast majority of United Nations member states in recognizing Palestinian statehood.
In a statement with the headline, "Burying the Idea of a Palestinian State," the finance minister said Israel plans to build 3,401 homes for Israeli settlers in the E1 corridor.
The plan still needs the approval of Israel's High Planning Council, which is expected next week. After the project is approved, settlers could begin housing construction in about a year.
The Israeli group Peace Now, an anti-settlement watchdog, said Thursday that "government is driving us forward at full speed" toward "an abyss."
"The Netanyahu government is exploiting every minute to deepen the annexation of the West Bank and prevent the possibility of a two-state solution," said Peace Now. "The government of Israel is condemning us to continued bloodshed, instead of working to end it."
Smotrich, whose popularity in Israel has plummeted in recent months, claimed U.S. President Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee, Trump's ambassador to Israel, reversed the United States' longstanding opposition to the E1 plan, which would cut off Palestinian communities between Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, including an historic area called al-Bariyah.
The proposed settlement would also close to Palestinians the main highway going from Jerusalem to Maale Adumim.
"The Israeli government is openly announcing apartheid," Aviv Tatarsky, a researcher at the Israeli rights group Ir Amim, told Middle East Eye. "It explicitly states that the E1 plans were approved to 'bury' the two-state solution and to entrench de facto sovereignty. An immediate consequence could be the uprooting of more than a dozen Palestinian communities living in the E1 area."
Netanyahu and the Trump administration have not confirmed Smotrich's claim that they back the establishment of E1, but the White House has signaled a lack of support for the longstanding U.S. policy of working toward a two-state solution.
Huckabee said in a June interview with Bloomberg News that the U.S. is no longer seeking an independent Palestinian state.
"The Israeli government is openly announcing apartheid. It explicitly states that the E1 plans were approved to 'bury' the two-state solution and to entrench de facto sovereignty."
Smotrich said Thursday that Huckabee and Trump believe "a Palestinian state would endanger the existence of Israel" and that "God promised [the West Bank] to our father Abraham and gave [it] to us thousands of years ago."
He added, using the biblical term for the West Bank, that Netanyahu "backs me up in everything concerning Judea and Samaria, and is letting me create the revolution."
The U.S. State Department was vague in its response to questions from The Times of Israel about the E1 settlement on Thursday.
"A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with the Trump administration's goal to achieve peace in the region," said the agency. "We refer you to the government of Israel for more information."
Countries including the U.K., New Zealand, Canada, and Australia imposed sanctions on Smotrich in June for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, the rate of which has doubled over the last year.
In a statement, the Palestinian foreign ministry called the new settlement plan "an extension of crimes of genocide, displacement, and annexation."
Tatarsky said Smotrich's announcement on Thursday showed how international supporters of Palestinian statehood must "understand that Israel is undeterred by diplomatic gestures or condemnations" and take "concrete action" to stop the expansion of illegal settlements.
Speaking to The Guardian Wednesday, Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, said countries that have recently signaled plans to recognize Palestinian statehood must also focus on ending Israel's assault and blockade in Gaza, which has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians so far—including at least 239 people who have starved to death.
“Of course it's important to recognize the state of Palestine," Albanese said. "It's incoherent that they've not done it already."
"Ending the question of Palestine in line with international law is possible and necessary," she added. "End the genocide today, end the permanent occupation this year, and end apartheid. This is what's going to guarantee freedom and equal rights for everyone."
They wrote that "it exemplifies anti-Palestinian discrimination, obstructing the dissemination of knowledge on Palestine at the height of the genocide in Gaza," where students and educators face scholasticide.
As Israel continues its U.S.-backed annihilation of the Gaza Strip and Harvard University weighs a deal with the Trump administration, the Ivy League institution came under fire by more than 200 scholars on Thursday for recently canceling a journal issue on Palestine.
"We, the undersigned scholars, educators, and education practitioners, write to express our alarm at the Harvard Education Publishing Group's (HEPG) cancellation of a special issue on Palestine and Education in the Harvard Educational Review (HER)," says the open letter. "Such censorship is an attempt to silence the academic examination of the genocide, starvation, and dehumanization of Palestinian people by the state of Israel and its allies."
Last month, The Guardian revealed how, after over a year of seeking, collecting, and editing submissions for a special issue on "education and Palestine" in preparation for a summer release, HEPG scrapped plans for the publication in June.
"The Guardian spoke with four scholars who had written for the issue, and one of the journal's editors," the newspaper detailed. "It also reviewed internal emails that capture how enthusiasm about a special issue intended to promote 'scholarly conversation on education and Palestine amid repression, occupation, and genocide' was derailed by fears of legal liability and devolved into recriminations about censorship, integrity, and what many scholars have come to refer to as the 'Palestine exception' to academic freedom."
The new letter also uses that language:
Contributing authors of the special issue were informed late into the process that the publisher intended to subject all articles to a legal review by Harvard University's Office of General Counsel. In response to this extraordinary move, the 21 contributing authors submitted a joint letter to both HEPG and HER, protesting this process as a contractual breach that violated their academic freedom. They also underscored the publisher's actions would set a dangerous precedent not only for the study of Palestine, but for academic publishing as a whole. The authors demanded that HEPG honour the original terms of their contractual agreements, uphold the integrity of the existing HER review process, and ensure that the special issue proceed to publication without interference. However, just prior to its release, HEPG unilaterally canceled the entire special issue and revoked the signed author contracts, in what The Guardian notes as "a remarkable new development in a mounting list of examples of censorship of pro-Palestinian speech."
These events reflect what scholars have termed the "Palestine exception" to free speech and academic freedom. It exemplifies anti-Palestinian discrimination, obstructing the dissemination of knowledge on Palestine at the height of the genocide in Gaza—precisely when Palestinian educators and students are enduring the most severe forms of "scholasticide" in modern history.
In a lengthy online statement about the cancellation, HEPG executive director Jessica Fiorillo said that "we decided not to move forward with the special issue because it did not meet our established standards for scholarly publishing. Of the 12 proposed pieces, three were research-based articles, two were reprints of previously published HER articles, and seven were opinion pieces."
"As a student-edited, non-peer-reviewed publication, HER manuscripts, nonetheless, undergo internal review by experienced, professional staff," she continued. "During this review, we determined that the submissions required substantial editorial work to meet our publication criteria. We concluded that the best recourse for all involved was to revert the rights to the pieces to authors so that they could seek publication elsewhere."
The scholars wrote Thursday that "it is unconscionable that HEPG have chosen to publicly frame their cancellation of the special issue as a matter of academic quality, while omitting key publicly reported facts that point to censorship. Perhaps most disturbingly, HEPG leadership has sought to displace responsibility for their actions onto the authors and graduate student editors of the journal, calling into question the integrity of the journal's long-standing review processes, and dismissing the articles as 'opinion pieces' unfit for publication."
"The latter claim ignores that HER explicitly welcomes 'experiential knowledge' and 'reflective accounts' through their Voices submission format," they noted. "When genocide is ongoing, personal reflections and testimonies are not only valid but vital. Dismissing such contributions as lacking scholarly merit reflects an exclusionary view of 'whose knowledge counts'—valuing Western and external academic perspectives over lived experiences of violence and oppression."
The scholars—whose letter remains open to signatures—said that they "stand in solidarity with the authors and graduate student editors of the special issue, who are facing and confronting censorship and discrimination," and concluded by calling for "HEPG to be held accountable."
HEPG is a division of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. While a spokesperson for the latter did not respond to The Guardian's request for comment on the new letter, signatory and University of Oxford professor Arathi Sriprakash told the newspaper that the cancellation mobilized scholars "precisely because we recognize the grave consequences of such threats to academic freedom and academic integrity."
"The ongoing genocidal violence in Gaza has involved the physical destruction of the entire higher education system there, and now in many education institutions around the world there are active attempts to shut down learning about what's happening altogether," Sriprakash said. "As educationalists, we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and learning without fear or threat."
HEPG's cancellation has been blasted as yet another example of higher education institutions capitulating as President Donald Trump's administration cracks down on schools where policies and speech on campus don't align with the White House agenda—including students' and educators' condemnation of the Israeli assault on Gaza and U.S. complicity in it. The Trump administration is also targeting individual critics, trying to deport foreign scholars who have spoken out or protested on campus over the past 22 months.
Harvard won praise in April for suing the federal government over a multibillion-dollar funding freeze. However, last month, the university "quietly dismantled its undergraduate school's offices for diversity, equity, and inclusion," and reportedly "signaled a willingness to meet the Trump administration's demand to spend as much as $500 million to end its dispute with the White House."
Amid fears of what a settlement, like those reached by other Ivy League institutions, might involve, Harvard faculty argued in a July letter that "the university must not directly or indirectly cede to governmental or other outside authorities the right to install or reject leading personnel—that is, to dictate who can be the officials who lead the university or its component schools, departments, and centers."
While the HER issue was canceled during Harvard's battle with Trump, outrage over how scholarship on Palestine is handled on campus predates the president's return to power in January. In November 2023, The Nation published a piece about Israel's war on Gaza that the Harvard Law Review commissioned from a Palestinian scholar but then refused to run after an internal debate.
At the time, the author of that essay, human rights attorney Rabea Eghbariah, wrote in an email to a Law Review editor: "This is discrimination. Let's not dance around it—this is also outright censorship. It is dangerous and alarming."