Archives for category: Fascism
« Older Entries

Timothy Snyder: “On Tyranny” and Our 250th Birthday

By dianeravitch
July 4, 2026 //
0

Timothy Snyder is a leading historian of Europe. He was a professor at Yale University. Last year, he accepted a professorship and chair at the University of Toronto, because he feared that Trump was taking the U.S. into a fascist future.

He wrote this post for publication today. It includes a video, which you may watch by opening the link.

He writes:

On the Fourth of July, Americans celebrate a rebellion…

We are told today, by the men who would humiliate us, that America was founded in a spirit of innocence, that its leaders never did anything wrong, and that patriotism means insisting on our own blamelessness and assigning all evil to others. 

If we accept that offer, we not only get history wrong, but we cede our own power to change things for the better. We let the oligarchs steal our money and the fascists rob the greater treasure of our liberty.

If the republic has lasted so long, it is because it was radical in its beginnings. Insofar as it has thrived, it has been through successful and continual struggles against its own limits. 

And that has only been possible because Americans have seen those limits, because they have chosen to see the truth about their history and themselves. I was thinking of self-recognition and self-correction ten years ago when I wrote On Tyranny; today, as a small part of a celebration our two hundred and fifty years, some friends of freedom have joined me to read its lessons aloud.

On Tyranny (the book)

On Tyranny (free resources)

In On Tyranny, I wrote that “the precedent set by the founders demands that we examine history to understand the deep sources of tyranny.” The truth on which this country was founded is not that people are perfect, but that they are not. They — we — are vulnerable to those who amass wealth and deploy propaganda. We can be turned against one another. Because we are imperfect, said the founders, we place our trust not in any one person — no kings, no tyrants — but in a system of laws, checks and balances, and civic representation by voting that allows us to live in the dignified understanding that power arises from consent.

The rebellion of 1776, in other words, arose from ideas of what was right — “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness“ — but no one thought that those good things could be established once and for all. The point was to create conditions under which we could see, at every moment, the problems that we tend to create ourselves, and under which we could find solutions to those problems. This included — with time, with work, with suffering, with pain borne by some more than others — the ability to see the humanity in one another, to see the horror of slavery for what it was, and to recognize that we all deserve an unhindered voice and an unhindered vote.

On the Fourth of July, 1776, nothing was completed. Something was undertaken, at great peril and risk. The founders did not think of themselves as great men whose faces should be on mountains, as demigods whose stone faces should invite us to submit to future tyrants. When, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, they pledged to one another “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” it was in a cause that they believed was right, but it was also in a cause that was difficult, even desperate.

After victory in the Revolutionary War, the founders debated how to found a republic, conscious of the failures of liberty in history. They knew from the ancient Greeks that oligarchies — rule by a few wealthy men — easily coalesce. They understood from the Roman Stoics that freedom requires a self-discipline that defied the immediate circumstances. They saw from the failed republics of their own times that wealth easily captures institutions. And so in a second moment of insight, they added a Constitution to the Declaration of Independence.

Sadly, those who lead our official celebration today represent every threat to liberty that the founders named: arbitrary rule; indifference to law; undue accumulation of wealth; corruption of the government to attain that wealth; collusion with foreign powers to attain power. And we confront a spirit that is contrary to freedom, one that tells us that we should trade a history of freedom for the smoke of fireworks and a face mirrored on a mountain. The past is being used to tell us that we have no choice but to accept the present.

As Frederick Douglass reminds us, in a great speech on another Fourth of July, “the cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers.” That is, sadly, exactly what is happening today. That is the essence of today’s official commemoration. As he understood, the founders, though wrong about many things, were rebels in their own time, people who took risks. To celebrate them justly is not to wish that the past return, or to worship them as flawless, or least of all to accept the aspiring tyrant who is undoing the best of their work.

To celebrate a rebellion means not to obey in advance, not to accept any of this as normal: not the lies told about the history by the people destroying our future, not the saccharine veneration of the Constitution by people who violate it every day, not the seizure of the mantle of revolution by a band of reactionary oligarchs. It is to be as courageous as you can: to speak the truth, to protect the elections we still have, and above all to organize in a great a joyful coalition.

History is not something that our oligarchs and fascists can take, try though they will today. History is what we make. It does not come to us. We come to it — with what we know, what we say, and what we do. Nothing in history dooms us; and nothing in history saves us. In the months between now and the next elections, there will be much forecasting, speculating, and worrying. None of that matters. All that matters is organizing a great and joyful coalition.

All that matters is the work. If my words are useful, if the beautiful reading here of my words is useful, it is only because those words bring you to act.

To celebrate a rebellion is to know that, from a flawed world, we can make new things. We can hold on, we can find each other, and not just imagine but create a much better America.

PS: The lessons: (1) Do not obey in advance; (2) Defend institutions; (3) Beware the one-party state; (4) Take responsibility for the face of the world; (5) Remember professional ethics; (6) Be wary of paramilitaries; (7) Be reflective if you must be armed; (8) Stand out; (9) Be kind to our language; (10) Believe in truth; (11) Investigate; (12) Make eye contact and small talk; (13) Practice corporeal politics; (14) Establish a private life; (15) Contribute to good causes; (16) Learn from peers in other countries; (17) Listen for dangerous words; (18) Be calm when the unthinkable arrives; (19) Be a patriot; (20) Be as courageous as you can.

Categories Democracy, Elections, Extremism, Fascism, Trump, Tyranny

Federal Judges Block Trump Censorship at National Parks

By dianeravitch
June 15, 2026 //
3

Early on in Trump’s second term, he rolled out executive orders demanding censorship of exhibits and signage at museums and national parks, as well as other institutions that received federal funds. He complained that federal funds should not support anything that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion, anything that he deemed “woke,” and anything that reflected badly in our history. On Friday two federal judges ruled against his administration’s censorship of historically accurate accounts.

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the National Park Service from removing or revising signs, films and other materials at national parks across the country to comply with a directive from President Trump.

The ruling pauses enforcement of an executive order that called for removing or covering up materials at national parks that “inappropriately disparage Americans” or cast the United States “in a negative light.”

The judge, Angel Kelley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, also ordered the Park Service to restore within three weeks any exhibits that it had dismantled or altered.

The ruling provides a temporary reprieve for the plaintiffs, a coalition of advocacy groups that sued over the executive order in February, while the litigation continues to unfold.

To comply with the president’s directive, the Park Service has taken down plaques about slavery at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, a sign about climate change at Fort Sumter in South Carolina and a sign about Indigenous people at Acadia National Park in Maine.

Another federal judge has already ordered the Park Service not to make further changes to the slavery exhibit at the President’s House Site at Independence National Historical Park, as she considers a separate lawsuit filed by Philadelphia.

Judge Kelley, who was nominated by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., sharply rebuked the Trump administration for taking down materials. “Not only does this undermine the integrity of the national parks; it sets a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization,” she wrote.

Judge Kelley began her 63-page ruling by listing examples of national parks that help educate visitors about difficult periods of American history, as well as contributions made by people of color, gay and transgender figures, women and other marginalized groups.

“From the echoes of abolition in John Brown’s Fort in Harpers Ferry, to the genesis of the modern L.G.B.T.Q.+ civil rights movement at the Stonewall National Monument, to the retreating ice of Glacier National Park in Alaska, the national parks preserve the multifaceted and multilayered history of our nation, including the good, the bad and the ugly,” she wrote.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that removing the materials was “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. They also accused the Park Service of exceeding its legal authority.

Katie Martin, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, the parent agency of the Park Service, suggested that the administration would appeal the ruling.

“This ruling is from a liberal activist judge,” Ms. Martin said in an email. “The department will look at our appeal options while we celebrate U.F.C. Freedom 250 on the South Lawn of the White House this weekend in honor of our nation’s 250th with the greatest president in the history of our country — President Donald J. Trump.”

Emily Thompson, the executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, one of the advocacy groups that brought the lawsuit, applauded the ruling.

“National parks are not propaganda tools, nor should they be used for partisan purposes,” Ms. Thompson said in a statement. “They exist to preserve and interpret the full American story, not just the parts that make some politicians comfortable. This ruling is an important step to help ensure that remains the case.”

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Extremism, Fascism, Racism, Trump

“They Walk Among Us”–Who Are They?

By dianeravitch
June 12, 2026 //
9

Masha Gessen, columnist for The New York Times, describes the Trump administration’s latest effort to dehumanize immigrants and to desensitize U.S. to Trump’s inhumane treatment of them.

Gessen writes:

“They walk among us.” The glowing green letters emerge ominously against a dark backdrop. Above them hover the words “aliens” and “declassified,” suggesting the release — long awaited in some corners of the internet — of secret government files concerning extraterrestrials. Slowly, tantalizingly, more text appears: “For 60 years, the U.S. government has kept a closely guarded secret.” Then the big reveal: It’s not the trailer for a horror film; it’s a White House web page, posted last Thursday. And the scary creatures in question aren’t extraterrestrials; they’re the other kind of aliens — the immigrant kind, the kind hunted by ICE.

“Aliens have been walking among us, living in our neighborhoods, and interacting with us in our daily lives,” the page announces. “They’ve shopped in the same stores, attended the same classes as our children, and lived seemingly normal human existences.” That’s the joke: Human beings are described as nonhuman invaders. Fascism, but make it a troll.

This web page, which invites users to look up the number of immigrants supposedly arrested on charges of criminal activity in American cities and towns, belongs to a subgenre of Trumpian gestures that are menacing and sophomoric at the same time. “Grotesque and terrifying and juvenile,” is how Ernesto Verdeja, a genocide-prevention expert at the University of Notre Dame, described it to me. These gestures are hard to write about: The ugliness is undisguised, so what is there to say? And yet, these statements, step by preposterous step, change the world we live in.

With phrases like, “They do not belong here” and, “Deport them all,” the page struck me as an incitement for Americans to commit acts of violence against immigrants. But Benjamin Valentino, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, thinks that the purpose of the page is not to get Americans to do anything: It’s to get them to do nothing, while the government commits its campaign of cruelty against millions of people just trying to live in peace. “They want a majority of the population to turn their backs,” he said. “That’s all that’s necessary.”

Who are they? Elon musk? Peter Thiel? Dangerous immigrants!

Categories Bigotry, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Immigration, Trump

Commonweal: “Simply Murder” in International Waters

By dianeravitch
June 8, 2026 //
3

We continue to see stories about American military attacks on small boats in the Caribbean or the Pacific. We read that our planes destroyed a boat carrying drugs and drug dealers. How do we know whether the boat was carrying drugs? No evidence is presented. How do we know that the men killed were drug dealers, not fishermen? We don’t. We have to trust Pete Hegseth.

Dominic Preziosi, editor of Commonweal, says that without evidence, the attacks on small craft might be “simply murder.” Commonweal is a liberal Catholic journal that is thoughtful and definitely worth reading.

He writes:

Now that his appeals have been denied, former Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte faces trial for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court. Duterte is charged with killing alleged drug addicts and dealers during his terms as mayor of Davao City and as president from 2016 to 2022—about six thousand people, though some estimates put the total closer to thirty thousand. Duterte dispatched police death squads to carry out his campaign of extrajudicial executions, which was condemned at the time by rights groups around the world and by Catholic leaders in the Philippines, who called it a “reign of terror.” Duterte once bragged of having stabbed someone to death, and while president said he would “be happy to slaughter” three million drug addicts in the country if he could.

Donald Trump was an early admirer of Duterte. In April 2017, three months into his first term, Trump called Duterte to praise him for his murderous crackdown. “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem,” he enthused. “Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing.” Just a month before that, the U.S. State Department had criticized Duterte in its annual human-rights report, citing “apparent governmental disregard for human rights and due process.”

There are unmistakable echoes of Duterte’s “unbelievable job” in the Trump administration’s campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which was launched last September under the pretext of protecting the “American homeland” from drug cartels and so-called narcoterrorists. In fifty-eight attacks by drone and aircraft—the most recent on May 26—nearly two hundred people have been killed. In at least one instance, U.S. forces returned to kill survivors clinging to the wreckage of a vessel already struck. The U.S. military has also used aircraft painted like a civilian plane to carry out some of the attacks. Both of these would qualify as war crimes. Wary of being linked to human-rights violations, allies like Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands have stopped sharing intelligence that they think could be misused by the United States to target vessels. Shortly after the attacks began, Arizona senator Mark Kelly and several other Democratic lawmakers—all of whom served in the military or intelligence community—issued a joint statement reminding service members that they do not have to obey illegal orders. 

In none of the boat strikes has the military seized drugs or produced evidence that those it killed were involved in the drug trade. Many of the victims appear to have been fishermen or other laborers. This hasn’t stopped Trump from demonizing those killed or members of his administration from releasing celebratory video clips of vessels being destroyed from high above. Vice President J. D. Vance has cracked that he “wouldn’t go fishing right now in that part of the world.” In defending the campaign, called “Operation Southern Spear,” Hegseth uses bizarre theocratic rhetoric, warning that “Christian nations, under God” cannot be led astray by “radical narco-communists.” 

Trump, meanwhile, spouts nonsense about the targeting program’s effectiveness. He has claimed that the strikes have prevented twenty-five thousand cocaine-related deaths in one year, though experts say that there have not been that many such deaths over the past fifty years in total. He has baselessly declared that “98.2% of Drugs coming into the U.S. by Ocean or Sea have STOPPED!” since the killing spree began. He has failed (repeatedly) to distinguish between cocaine and fentanyl—which has taken a deadly toll on Americans, but which enters the country via land routes and is not transported by sea. Meanwhile, traditional interdiction—stopping suspicious vessels, confiscating drugs, arresting traffickers, all while refraining from indiscriminate killing—continues to be the most effective means of disrupting shipments. 

But in many ways that is all beside the point. The strikes are wrong on legal, ethical, and moral grounds. The administration’s contention that the United States is at war with “narcoterrorists”—an argument that builds on the spurious reasoning of the Bush administration to justify its use of torture in the “global war on terror”—doesn’t permit it to launch lethal attacks on civilians. Even John Yoo, the former Bush official who devised that reasoning, has qualms about the Trump administration’s rationale for killing people in international waters. “Never before in the country’s history has the government asserted this type [of] power,” Seton Hall law school professor Jonathan Hafetz told The Guardian. “This is a clear example of unlawful killing by the United States.” 

The Pentagon’s internal watchdog recently announced it will investigate the boat strikes, but that it will only evaluate “the joint process for targeted vessels”—how the military conducts the attacks, leaving aside the matter of their legality. While Duterte may have to answer for his crimes, no American official involved in killing civilians at sea—from Trump and Hegseth on down—will face trial in an international court, since the United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. The families of two Trinidadian fishermen killed by the United States have filed suit against the administration in a Massachusetts court, but it’s hard to know how their case will fare given that foreign nationals are not protected by federal law. Yet their charge seems beyond dispute: “[The attacks] were simply murder, ordered at the highest levels of government and obeyed by military officers in the chain of command.” 

Dominic Preziosi is Commonweal’s editor.

Categories Accountability, Cruelty, Ethics, Evil, Fascism

Trump Administration Wants All Federal Grants to Be Subject to a Loyalty Test–Loyalty to Him and His Policies

By dianeravitch
June 8, 2026 //
7

Despite appearances, the most powerful person in the Trump administration is not Donald Trump: it’s Russell Vought, Director of Office of Management and Budget. He is the brains of this administration. Vought was at the Heritage Foundation and was one of the writers of project 2025. He controls the budget and makes the decisions about which government programs should live or die. Trump has impulses, whims, and passing fancies; Vought is methodical and determined to impose his rightwing views on the entire federal government. Every federal grant, Vought believes, should align with Trump’s anti-woke, anti-DEI agenda.

Tony Romm wrote about Vought’s strategy in The New York Times:

The White House is seeking to exert more control over billions of dollars in annual government grants, aiming to restrict a vast swath of funding — in health, housing, science and transportation — so that it primarily serves the purposes and organizations politically aligned with President Trump.

While the administration says that its primary goal is to safeguard taxpayer money, its proposal amounts to a major escalation in its attempt to reimagine the nation’s spending, even as Congress and the courts continue to rebuke the president for abusing such powers.

Mr. Trump’s ambitions were made clear in a roughly 400-page blueprint that was released to little fanfare on Friday. If finalized, it would require all federal grants to be approved by the president’s political appointees, who must ensure that the money would “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.”

For the agencies that issue those awards and the nonprofit groups, local governments, universities and other entities that receive the money, the Trump administration would also impose a set of highly prescriptive and political criteria.

The government could not issue grants to projects or groups that “deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans,” for example. Nor could it seek to fund initiatives that “promote anti-American values,” contribute to illegal immigration, advance diversity, equity and inclusion or assist in voter registration.

The rules would further limit the ability of grant recipients to engage in some “issue advocacy.” Those that are funded would be scrutinized for their compliance with “religious liberty laws” and their “memberships and affiliations” with outside groups. And they could face the outright termination of their grants if the Trump administration someday determines that their actions are not in the “public interest.”

The restrictions echo the string of executive orders that Mr. Trump signed shortly after returning to office, many of which have been challenged or blocked in court. This time, however, the White House has pursued its restrictions by proposing a regulation, which is expected to become final after the government solicits public comment. The result could be applied far more broadly, and perhaps in ways that are harder to fight legally or undo later, according to budget experts.

The consequences could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which Mr. Trump has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term.

In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear. Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could “devastate innovation, science and research” in the United States.

Categories Bias, Budget Cuts, Censorship, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Funding, Health, Research

Why Did Washington Press Corps Invite Trump to Dinner?

By dianeravitch
April 29, 2026 //
16

Kevin Cullen, a columnist for The Boston Globe, lambasted the Washington press corps for inviting Trump to be their speaker. What did they expect he would say? Did they want to be insulted as “enemies of the people” and “fake news”?

Sure, it’s customary to invite the President. But did anyone expect Trump to forget about his hatred of the media? Cullen thinks they should be more careful in choosing a speaker, like picking someone who appreciates the First Amendment.

He wrote:

So many questions after a deranged, thankfully inept gunman tried to force his way into the White House Correspondents’ Association gala, where President Trump was a guest.

The biggest one being: Why was Trump there in the first place?

Like all fascists, Trump hates a free press and has done his level best to humiliate, intimidate, harm, cancel, and even prosecute journalists and news outlets. Like all authoritarians, he has tried to limit press scrutiny of himself and his administration.

So what on earth were the White House press corps thinking when it invited this guy to their annual dress-up party?

It’s like inviting your obnoxious neighbor to a family barbecue after he relieves himself in your pool.

It’s like inviting a jackal to a tea party for a bunch of cute little bunny rabbits.

Let’s roll the tape:

In 2015, when he was running for president, Trump mocked New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from a congenital joint condition. Trump was just getting warmed up.

In 2017, after a Republican congressional candidate in Montana assaulted and body slammed a reporter for The Guardian, Trump voiced support for the attacker, saying, “He’s my kind of guy.”

In 2020, after MSNBC’s Ali Velshi was hit by a rubber bullet during a protest after George Floyd was murdered by a police officer in Minneapolis, Trump called it a “beautiful sight.” Trump misidentified Velshi as being with CNN, but, hey, all the fake news is all the same to Trump anyway.

At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania in November 2024, Trump stood behind bulletproof glass and reassured his supporters he was safe, noting that anyone who tried to shoot him would have to shoot through a bunch of journalists standing in front of him, adding, “I wouldn’t mind that so much.”

More recently, the FBI, led by Kash Patel, the laughably unqualified frat bro whom Trump appointed as FBI director, launched an investigation of Elizabeth Williamson, a New York Times reporter who had the temerity to point out that the FBI is spending untold taxpayer dollars providing a SWAT team to “protect” Patel’s girlfriend, Weymouth’s own Alexis Wilkins, when she engages in risky public acts like getting her hair done.

Even more recently, after Saturday’s attack, Trump insulted CBS’s Norah O’Donnell and questioned her professionalism, calling her a “disgrace” for asking a question about the gunman’s manifesto.

If you’re noticing a pattern here, Trump really doesn’t like women journalists who question him.

I could go on — and I haven’t even mentioned the shakedowns of all the networks, and Trump using his influence so Edward R. Murrow’s storied CBS News becomes more like Fox News Lite — but you get the point. 

And yet, Trump’s press secretary stood before journalists after Saturday’s attack and claimed, with a straight face, that the leftist press and Democrats are responsible for the violent rhetoric that leads to attacks like the one at the Washington Hilton.

So what did the Washington press corps think was going to happen when it gave Trump a platform at its shindig?

Did they think he would have some Jeffersonian conversion, pronouncing that if given the choice between a government without journalism or journalism without government, he would choose the latter?

Thomas Jefferson believed strongly in the idea of a free press that would act as a watchdog against government corruption and overreach.

Trump hates a free press for those very same reasons. He doesn’t want the public to know about his cons, about him using government to enrich his family and his cronies. He can’t stand the idea of the press, or anyone, questioning his judgment, or pointing out the folly of his ways, about him starting a needless war when he ran for president claiming he would never start a needless war.

Trump resembles not Thomas Jefferson, but George Jefferson, the TV character who hated everyone and everything. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest Trump is more familiar with George Jefferson than Thomas Jefferson.

Why give Trump a platform to spew his fascist hatred of a robust, free press?….

Categories Accountability, Ethics, Extremism, Fake News, Fascism, Freedom of the Press, Trump

Hungarian Voters Oust Viktor Orban!

By dianeravitch
April 12, 2026 //
31

In what appears to be a historic turnout, voters in Hungary ousted Viktor Orban!

This is great news for NATO and bad news for Trump and Putin, who lauded Orban as the future of Europe. MAGA loved Orban, who claimed to have created an “illiberal democracy.”

Orban was a European version of Trump, censoring or closing down anyone who disagreed with him. He harmed freedom of the press, universities, and the judiciary. He stridently opposed LGBT rights.

The victory of Peter Magyar, who seems to have won more than 2/3 of the seats in Parliament, means a new day for Hungary, NATO, and the European Union.

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Democracy, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Higher Education, International

JD Vance: Master of Hypocrisy

By dianeravitch
April 12, 2026 //
7

JD Vance traveled to Hungary last week to help right-wing leader Viktor Orban, whose Presidency is being decided today by the voters.

Orban is the hero of the MAGA cult, because he has cracked down on universities, free speech, the judiciary, and the LGBT community. Hard-right conservatives in the U.S. admire Orban because of his success in curbing people and institutions who disagree with him. He is the successful template for curbing freedom and democracy. Orban has a close relationship with Putin and has strongly opposed aid to Ukraine in repelling the Russian invasion.

Today, his party is being challenged by a new party formed by Peter Magyar, a former ally of Orban. The polls predict that Magyar’s party, Tisza, is likely to beat Orban’s party, Fidesz.

Opponents of Orban’s authoritarianism fear that he will rig the election, or like Trump, refuse to accept a loss.

JD Vance arrived last week and spent a few days boosting Orban’s campaign and endorsing his anti/democratic accomplishments. Vance did not mention the hundreds of thousands of Hungarians who have left the country or the country’s low economic growth.

Vance denounced interference in the Hungarian election by EU nations and Ukraine. This foreign interference, he said, was deplorable.

Did it occur to Vance that his vigorous campaigning for Orban was precisely the foreign interference of which he accused other nations? Imagine how Americans would feel if top officials from other nations showed up in the closing days of a major election to campaign for their favored candidate? Not good, I suspect.

It’s odd to see Trump and Putin coalescing behind the same candidate. And ominous. It will be a healthy sign if Hungarian voters toss out this authoritarian bully, this champion of censorship and repression.

Categories Censorship, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Vance, J.D.

The 25th Amendment Won’t Save Us from the Mad King

By dianeravitch
April 7, 2026 //
6

Appalled by Trump’s erratic behavior and his threats to commit war crimes in Iran–as he said in a news conference, to destroy every bridge and every power plant in Iran–many political commentators are calling for the implementation of the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

Last night, Laurence O’Donnell devoted most of his news program on MS NOW to the claim that Trump is insane, and it is time to activate the 25th Amendment.

Trump’s vulgar message to Iranian leaders, posted on Easter Sunday morning, set off a new round of demands to get this unhinged man out of the Oval Office, far away from the power to start a nuclear war on a whim.

After reading Trump’s message, even former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, once close to Trump, wrote in a tweet:

Everyone in his administration that claims to be a Christian needs to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness from God and stop worshipping the President and intervene in Trump’s madness.
I know all of you and him and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit.

Certainly Democrats and most independents would like to see this menace to world peace, the global economy, democratic institutions, and national security removed from office. No doubt JD Vance, despite his sycophancy, quietly would love to be catapulted into the presidency.

BUT…..it’s not going to happen.

To remove a President from office, the Vice President and a majority of his Cabinet must agree that the President is incapable of fulfilling the duties of his office.

Trump’s Cabinet would never agree to remove him from office unless he did something unthinkable. They were chosen not for their competence, but for their personal loyalty to him. Can you imagine Pete Hegseth or wrestling queen Linda McMahon voting to remove Trump? The unthinkable that might change even their minds might be…Trump running around the White House grounds stark naked; Trump ordering the military to drop a nuclear bomb on some country, friend or foe, because they disrespected him; Trump ordering ICE or the FBI to murder his political enemies; Trump engaging contractors to demolish the entire White House so he can erect a high-rise replacement, with his name at the bottom and the top in flashing lights ….The possibilities are limited.

But let’s imagine that Trump does something beyond my poor imagination, something so awful that a majority of his lackeys and sycophants vote to remove him.

That’s not enough. Their recommendation goes to the Congress, where two-thirds of both Houses must approve his removal.

How likely is that?

I say zilch, unless a black swan happens to build a nest on his bleached blonde tresses. A black swan, you may recall, is a metaphor for a totally unprecedented event, one that almost no one anticipates.

The 25th Amendment is not going to remove Trump, because those around him and Republicans in Congress are afraid of him or idolize him. There is only one way to curb Trump’s rage, incompetence, and boundless narcissism: Turn out the vote in November 2026. Sweep every Trump enabler out of office. Restore checks and balances. Elect a Congress that will investigate corruption, grifting, and profiteering. Elect a Congress that will stop his demolition of federal agencies and departments. Elect a Congress prepared to fight his attacks on enforcement of civil rights laws. Elect a Congress that will encourage and protect the votes of every citizen, not seek to suppress them.

The 25th Amendment will not save us. But a Congress devoted to the Constitution and to democracy can limit the damage that Trump has imposed on our government and on our relations with the rest of the world.

A historical note:

The National Constitution Center summarized the 25th Amendment, passed by Congress after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

AMENDMENT XXV. Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967. Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

The relevant content–removing a President who is unfit but unwilling to resign–is Section Four.

Section 4 addresses the dramatic case of a President who may be unable to fulfill his constitutional role but who cannot or will not step aside. It provides both a decision-maker and a procedure. The initial deciding group is the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or some other body that Congress may designate (though Congress has never done so). If this group declares a President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If and when the President pronounces himself able, the deciding group has four days to disagree. If it does not, the President retakes his powers. But if it does, the Vice President keeps control while Congress quickly meets and makes a decision. The voting rule in these contested cases favors the President; the Vice President continues acting as President only if two-thirds majorities of both chambers agree that the President is unable to serve.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Disruption, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Trump

A Song About Trump’s Education Policies: “We Believe in Local Control”

By dianeravitch
April 1, 2026 //
4

A good way to start off April Fool’s Day is by listening to this song by a group of young people in Colorado. The lyrics were written by Kevin Welner and are posted at the website of the National Education Policy Center.

The Trump regime says clearly “We believe in local control.” Except when they don’t.

Trump has issued executive orders about what may or may not be taught. Trump’s executive order #14253, signed on March 27, 2025, was titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” What it meant in practice was to censor any teaching or displays that showed the shameful aspects of American history, and to focus instead on “patriotic history.”

Trump has launched a campaign to oust diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as gender studies, African-American studies, and studies of other groups.

Trump has tried to seize control of institutions of higher education institutions by falsely accusing them of anti-Semitism. He has sought to control the admission of students, the curriculum, and the hiring of faculty.

Trump has taken institutions of higher education hostage by withholding or cancelling billions of dollars for research into medicine and science unless they turned control over to the federal government.

But, as the song says, “We believe in local control!”

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Civil Rights, Cruelty, Curriculum, Democracy, Ethics, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Health, Higher Education, Lies, Trump, U.S. Department of Education
« Older Entries