Jamelle Bouie is a columnist for The New York Times. He is my favorite. He has a broad and deep knowledge of politics and history. He writes about what he’s reading and what he’s cooking.
In this column, he explains that the Constitution prohibits any President from serving a third term. Since Trump loves to scoff at the Constitution, he’s been dropping hints that he will run again or maybe be president for life.
The polls are not encouraging. He currently is at 42% approval, and 52% disapproval. Polls can change, of course. But Trump is as impulsive, arrogant, and vengeful as ever.
Jamelle Bouie reminds us that it was Republicans who insisted on a two-term limit for the Presdency:
It does not come as a great surprise to see that less than a year into his second term in office, President Trump is already thinking about a third.
“I would love to do it,” he told reporters on Air Force One this week.
He has, in fact, been thinking about a third term for years.
“We’re going to win four more years in the White House,” he said in 2020. “And then after that, we’ll negotiate, right? Because we’re probably — based on the way we were treated — we are probably entitled to another four after that.”
And earlier this year, he told NBC News that he wasn’t “joking” about serving a third term. “There are methods which you could do it,” he said.
The obvious response to Trump’s musings is that the Constitution limits each president to two full terms. “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once,” reads the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951.
But allies of the president insist that there is a plan — a loophole — that might allow Trump to circumvent the Constitution and serve another four years or more.
“Trump is going to be president in ’28, and people just ought to get accommodated with that,” said Steve Bannon last week. “At the appropriate time, we’ll lay out what the plan is.”
This sounds plausible, but it is wrong. First, it treats the Constitution as a language game whose meaning depends less on the text, structure, history and purpose of the document and more on whether you can use the fundamental indeterminacy of language to brute-force your preferred outcome.
But that is not how you should read the Constitution, which isn’t a rigid set of instructions to be gamed by clever lawyers, but a political document meant to structure the rules of self-government in the United States. The 22nd Amendment was written to change one of those rules and limit the president’s term of office, regardless of the circumstances. Any apparent “loophole” is a mirage produced by a basic misunderstanding of what it is that the Constitution set out to accomplish. A quick look at the history and debate behind the amendment makes this clear.
Two terms in office had been the norm for American presidents since George Washington declined to stand for a third in 1796, instead handing the reins to his vice president, John Adams. In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt became the first president to run for and win a third term of office. He continued the streak in 1944, winning another term but dying in office just a few months after he delivered his fourth Inaugural Address.
In the following midterm elections, Republicans won a House and a Senate majority for the first time since the early 1930s. And at the top of the agenda for the 80th Congress was a constitutional amendment to make the two-term tradition a formal rule of American politics. Although this was a clear response to Roosevelt, congressional arguments in favor of the two-term limit emphasized the vast scope of presidential power and the threat it might pose to American democracy if left in the hands of one man over an extended period of time.
“If long tenure of office of the president was a threat to our republican form of government as stated by President Jefferson nearly 140 years ago, with his limited powers, small disbursements, small Army and Navy and a small number of appointees, how much greater must that threat be to our republican form of government and to the liberties of the American people today?” asked Representative John Marshall Robsion of Kentucky during floor debates over the amendment in 1947.
“I favor this proposed amendment,” said Representative John Jennings Jr. of Tennessee. “Only by its adoption can the people be assured that we shall never have a dictator in this land. Without such a limit on the number of terms a man may serve in the presidency, the time may come when a man of vaulting ambition becomes president.” Backed by a “subservient Congress,” continued Jennings, such a man “could well name to the Supreme Court of the United States men of his political faith and economic thinking” who could “sweep aside and overthrow the safeguards of the Constitution” and “overrule the settled states of law that have been declared and recognized for a hundred years.”
“Almost all of the rest of the world has slipped away from the foundations of freedom and skidded dangerously close to the shoals of executive domination, one-man rule, dictatorship and ruthless tyranny,” declared Representative Karl Earl Mundt of South Dakota. “Let us consolidate our gains in self-government by passing this resolution to prevent any president hereafter — Republican or Democratic — from perpetuating himself in office.”
The overriding concern among congressional supporters of the 22nd Amendment was to limit the president’s overall tenure of office. They did not parse the difference between service and election; they did not intend to create some special scenario by which, if a president followed the right steps, he could circumvent the restriction. They meant, simply, to restrict the president to two full terms for fear of what might be if presidential power fell into the wrong hands.
“To grant extended power to any one man would be a definite step in the direction of autocracy, regardless of the name given the office, whether it be president, king, dictator, emperor or whatever title the office may carry,” Senator Chapman Revercomb of West Virginia said during his chamber’s debate over the proposed amendment. “It would be a definite step toward the destruction of real freedom of the people.”
Heather Cox Richardson draws together the seams of a story that is unfolding piece by piece. Trump’s popularity is plummeting; he is obsessed with his poll numbers. At the same time, he is assembling military forces to control Democratic-run cities where there are no riots, no disorders that can’t be handled by local police. Does he really believe that the nation’s cities are engulfed by a massive crime wave?
The only terrifying development that she did not include in her summary is Trump’s declaration that he intends to resume nuclear testing, a practice abandoned in 1992.
As I read her piece below, I was reminded that Trump said at a rally, “Vote for me now, and you will never have to vote again.” He often says the quiet part out loud.
House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) continues to try to pin the upcoming catastrophic lapse in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding on the Democrats. But with the U.S. Department of Agriculture sitting on $6 billion in funds Congress appropriated for just such an event, the Treasury finding $20 billion to prop up Trump ally Javier Milei in Argentina, Johnson refusing to bring the House into regular session to negotiate an end to the government shutdown, and President Donald J. Trump demanding $230 million in damages from the American taxpayer, bulldozing the East Wing of the White House to build a gold-plated ballroom that will dwarf the existing White House, and traveling to Asia, where South Korean leadership courted him by giving him a gold crown and serving him brownies topped with edible gold, blaming any funding shortfall on Democrats is a hard sell.
According to a Washington Post–ABC survey, more Americans blame Trump and congressional Republicans for the shutdown than blame Democrats by a margin of 45 to 33, and Trump’s approval rating continues to move downward, with the presidential approval average reported by Fifty Plus One at 41.3% approval and 55.1% disapproval, a –14 split. G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers noted on October 24 that polls show Americans now trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy well.
Trump ran in 2024 with a promise to bring down inflation, which was then close to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2.0%; now core inflation is at 3%, having gone up every month since April. Halloween candy—on people’s minds today—is at 9.8% inflation and costs 44% more than it did in 2019. Federal Reserve Board chair Jerome Powell sure sounded like he was describing stagflation—a condition when the economy stagnates despite inflation—when he said yesterday: “In the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside, and risks to employment to the downside, a challenging situation.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said today that while the stock market has done well this year, a better economy is going to “start flowing through to working Americans next year.”
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, in a rambling and disjointed speech in Japan, Trump told U.S. military personnel that he is federalizing National Guard troops and sending them into Democratic-led cities “because we’re going to have safe cities.” In the same speech, Trump repeatedly attacked former president Joe Biden and insisted yet again that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. (It was not.)
When asked by a reporter later to clarify his remarks, Trump referred back to the Insurrection Act, saying that if he invoked it, “I’d be allowed to do whatever I want. But we haven’t chosen to do that because we’re…doing very well without it. But I’d be allowed to do that, you understand that. And the courts wouldn’t get involved. Nobody would get involved. And I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. I can send anybody I wanted.”
In fact, a president can invoke the accurately named Insurrection Act only in times of insurrection or rebellion. Neither of those conditions exists.
But the administration is working hard to create the impression that they do. Drew Harwell and Joyce Sohyun Lee of the Washington Post reported yesterday that the videos the Department of Homeland Security has been publishing to demonstrate the administration’s triumph over crime in U.S. cities as its agents work “day and night to arrest, detain and deport vicious criminals” have been doctored. They do not represent current actions, but rather are a hash of video from different states and different times.
When the reporters asked the White House about the misleading footage, spokesperson Abigail Jackson told them that “the Trump administration will continue to highlight the many successes of the president’s agenda through engaging content and banger memes on social media.”
There are signs the administration is not just trying to give the impression that Americans are rioting, but is trying to push them to do so.
Aaron Glantz of The Guardian reported yesterday that on October 8, Major General Ronald Burkett, who directs the Pentagon’s National Guard bureau, ordered the National Guard in all the states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia to form “quick reaction forces” trained in “riot control.” Most states are required to train 500 National Guard personnel, for a total nationwide of 23,500. The forces are supposed to be in place by January 1, 2026.
In his order, Burkett relied on an executive order Trump signed on August 25, calling on the secretary of defense to “immediately begin ensuring that each State’s Army National Guard and Air National Guard are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety and order,” and “ensure the availability of a standing National Guard quick reaction force that shall be resourced, trained, and available for rapid nationwide deployment.”
In August the administration planned for two groups of 300 troops to be stationed in Alabama and Arizona as a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force.” Now that number is 23,500, and the troops will be in every state and territory.
The establishment of a domestic quick reaction force to quell civil disturbances at a time when there are no civil disturbances that can’t be handled easily by existing law enforcement suggests the administration is expecting those conditions to change.
That expectation might have something to do with Monday’s story from Anna Giaritelli of the Washington Examiner that the White House is reassigning ICE field officers and replacing them with officers from Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Greg Wehner and Bill Melugin of Fox News reported that the shift will affect at least eight cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Philadelphia, El Paso, and New Orleans.
White House officials, presumably led by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who has said the administration intends to carry out “a minimum” of 3,000 arrests a day, are frustrated by the current pace of about 900 a day. So those officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, special government employee and Noem advisor Corey Lewandowski, and Greg Bovino, a Border Patrol sector chief who has been overseeing the agency’s operations in Los Angeles and Chicago, have decided to ramp up those deportations by replacing ICE officials with far more aggressive CBP leaders.
Tripling arrests will likely bring pushback.
Michael Scherer, Missy Ryan, and Ashley Parker of The Atlantic reported today that political appointees Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have moved onto military bases.
The designs of the anti-immigrant leaders in the administration dovetail with Trump’s political designs. Trump has talked a lot about serving a third term in the presidency, most recently talking about it to reporters on Air Force One earlier this week. The Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a third term, but Trump ally Stephen Bannon told The Economist last week that “Trump is going to be president in ‘28 and people just ought to get accommodated with that.” Bannon claimed, “There’s many different alternatives” to get around the Twenty-Second Amendment. Trump keeps “Trump 2028” campaign hats on bookshelves outside the Oval Office.
Janessa Goldbeck, the chief executive officer of the nonprofit Vet Voice Foundation, told Guardian reporter Glantz that Burkett’s recent order shows “an attempt by the president to normalize a national, militarized police force.” Such a force has not just military but also electoral power: it could be used in Democratic-led states to suppress voting. In a worst-case scenario, Goldbeck said, “the president could declare a state of emergency and say that elections are rigged and use allegations of voter fraud to seize the ballots of secure voting centers.”
Today, Buckingham Palace announced that King Charles has “initiated a formal process to remove the style, titles and honours of Prince Andrew” over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and participation in activities surrounding Epstein. Andrew will be stripped even of his title of “prince” and will be forced to leave the home he has shared for more than 20 years with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, at Royal Lodge, a 30-room mansion located in Windsor Great Park. The palace said: “These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”
Today Jim Acosta reported that survivors of Epstein’s sex trafficking enterprise have written a letter to Speaker Johnson demanding that Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) be sworn into office. Voters elected Grijalva on September 23, but Johnson has steadfastly refused to swear her in. Grijalva has said she will provide the last signature necessary on a discharge petition to force a vote on the public release of the Epstein files, an outcome that threatens to expose how and why Trump was named in those files.
The survivors write that Johnson’s “continued refusal to seat her is an unacceptable breach of democratic norms and a disservice to the American people. Even more concerning to us as survivors, this delay appears to be a deliberate attempt to block her participation in the discharge petition that would force a vote to unseal the Epstein/Maxwell files. The American public has a right to transparency and accountability, and we, as survivors, deserve justice. Any attempt to obstruct a vote on this matter—by manipulating House procedure or denying elected members their seats—is a direct affront to that right and adds insult to our trauma.”
Several days ago, Politico wrote about the scurrilous text messages shared by Young Republican leaders. When Vice President jD Vance was asked about the chat, he said in effect, “Boys will be boys.” Other GOP bigwigs had the same reaction. But the people in the chat group were not teenagers. They were adults in their 20s and 30s. The chat included racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, homophobic comments. One said “I love Hitler.”
It shows the attitudes that Trump has unleashed and encouraged among the younger generation of Republicans. They knew enough to worry what would happen if their chats ever went public. They knew.
But they also demonstrated what a fraud the Trump administration’s concern about anti-Semitism is. It’s a useful ploy, nothing more. People who actually care about anti-Semitism don’t make jokes about gas chambers.
Here’s an excerpt:
NEW YORK — Leaders of Young Republican groups throughout the country worried what would happen if their Telegram chat ever got leaked, but they kept typing anyway.
They referred to Black people as monkeys and “the watermelon people” and mused about putting their political opponents in gas chambers. They talked about raping their enemies and driving them to suicide and lauded Republicans who they believed support slavery.
William Hendrix, the Kansas Young Republicans’ vice chair, used the words “n–ga” and “n–guh,” variations of a racial slur, more than a dozen times in the chat. Bobby Walker, the vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans at the time, referred to rape as “epic.” Peter Giunta, who at the time was chair of the same organization, wrote in a message sent in June that “everyone that votes no is going to the gas chamber.”
Giunta was referring to an upcoming vote on whether he should become chair of the Young Republican National Federation, the GOP’s 15,000-member political organization for Republicans between 18 and 40 years old.
“Im going to create some of the greatest physiological torture methods known to man. We only want true believers,” he continued….
“Can we fix the showers? Gas chambers don’t fit the Hitler aesthetic,” Joe Maligno, who previously identified himself as the general counsel for the New York State Young Republicans, wrote back.
“I’m ready to watch people burn now,” Annie Kaykaty, New York’s national committee member, said.
The exchange is part of a trove of Telegram chats — obtained by POLITICO and spanning more than seven months of messages among Young Republican leaders in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The chat offers an unfiltered look at how a new generation of GOP activists talk when they think no one is listening.
“I’m ready to watch people burn now,” Annie Kaykaty, New York’s national committee member, said.
The exchange is part of a trove of Telegram chats — obtained by POLITICO and spanning more than seven months of messages among Young Republican leaders in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The chat offers an unfiltered look at how a new generation of GOP activists talk when they think no one is listening…
Together, the messages reveal a culture where racist, antisemitic and violent rhetoric circulate freely — and where the Trump-era loosening of political norms has made such talk feel less taboo among those positioning themselves as the party’s next leaders…
Mixed into formal conversations about whipping votes, social media strategy and logistics, the members of the chat slung around an array of slurs — which POLITICO is republishing to show how they spoke. Epithets like “f—-t,” “retarded” and “n–ga” appeared more than 251 times combined.
Vice President JD Vance laughed about the exchanges. Just the jokes that “kids” say, although these “boys” were adults.
The vice president suggested the real problem is the idea that an offensive joke can ruin a young person’s life.
“The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys,” Vance said on “The Charlie Kirk Show.” “They tell edgy, offensive jokes. That’s what kids do. And I really don’t want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke — telling a very offensive, stupid joke — is cause to ruin their lives.”
The hateful language has entered the GOP mainstream with no filters. One far-right blogger said the conversation was “tame” compared to the chatter on far-right sites. It’s no longer taboo to admire Nazis, Hitler, and gas chambers.
The Trump administration, enabled by complicit Republicans in Congress, has betrayed our Constitution repeatedly.
Such as, sending troops to peaceful cities, against the wishes of their elected officials.
Allowing masked ICE agents to snatch people from their homes, their workplaces, and the streets without a warrant.
Allowing ICE agents to use unnecessary force.
Taking “the power of the purse” away from Congress, whose Republican majority has willingly abandoned its Constitutional role.
Establishing tariffs based on Trump’s whims, not only disrupting the global economic order, but hurting American farmers and increasing inflation for all Americans.
Enriching himself and his family by making real estate deals with foreign powers, selling crypto to receive tribute of billions of dollars, selling Trump merchandise, and accepting a gift of a $400 million jet plane from a foreign power (an act forbidden as an emolument by the Constitution).
Politicizing the Justice Departnent as a personal Trump vendetta campaign against those his enemies.
Purging veteran career civil servants who won’t bend their knee to Trump.
Twisting civil rights enforcement to be the opposite of the law’s intent. Instead of protecting people of color and other minorities who have suffered from generations of discrimination, civil rights protection now applies to whites, who allegedly suffer whenever any institution tries to help minorities advance (DEI).
Firing any government lawyers who were assigned to investigate his criminal activities.
The list goes on and on.
Trump acts as if he is a king. The U.S. Supreme Court, dominated by six conservatives, have granted him “absolute immunity” from prosecution for anything he does as President. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution allows this grant of royal power.
And that is why we must show to express the wishes of the people: NO KINGS!
Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon want to do something that is not only wrong but illegal. They want to mess with the history and social studies that are taught in the nation’s schools. They want schools to teach students only what is great about the U.S., while overlooking the shameful events of the past, like slavery, segregation, the forced removal of Native Americans from their homelands, discrimination against people because of their race, national origin, religion.
Federal law explicitly prohibits any attempt to influence the curriculum of public schools by any federal officer.
If you think it’s a terrible idea to whitewash history, take note of this chance to send a message:
Federal Dept of Education: Please Submit a Comment – Especially Social Studies Teachers – it is worth it. Federal Dept of Education is holding its public comment period for Sec. McMahon’s new supplemental priority, “Promoting Patriotic Education,” until this Friday. at 11:59pm Share your thoughts on why a “patriotic” education, especially as defined by the Trump administration, is harmful! As the National Coalition on School Diversity points out, this grant prioritization mobilizes deeply racist and harmful executive orders such as January’s Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling and March’s Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History
Here is where to submit the comment – look at the comment checklist
Russia has a recurring mystery: very rich and prominent men keep falling to their deaths, with no explanation. Just recently, the publisher of Pravda suffered the same unfortunate fate.
Vyacheslav Leontyev, 87, had been the publisher of Pravda since 1984. It is believed that he jumped from the window of his fifth-floor apartment. Police officials think he had a “nervous breakdown.”
There have been around two dozen mysterious deaths of Russian top businessmen and other officials since the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Pravda, which means Truth, was the official newspaper of the ruling Communist Party until the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991
In July, Roman Starovoit, a transport minister, was found dead in a reported suicide just hours after the Kremlin had announced his dismissal. Police said he shot himself with a handgun. Unconfirmed Russian media reports say that he was under investigation over the theft of at least one billion roubles (£9.3 million), which was allocated for the construction of defences on the border with Ukraine.
Last month, a former Russian state property and customs official who was facing years in prison over corruption charges is said to have killed himself after escaping a courtroom in St Petersburg. Boris Avakyan, who held an Armenian passport, fled to the Armenian consulate and was discovered dead in a lavatory there, police said.
Also last month, the headless body of Alexey Sinitsyn, a leading Russian business manager, was found under a bridge in Kaliningrad, Russia’s Baltic exclave. A car tow rope was reportedly attached to his body and a police source told Vedomosti, a Russian newspaper, that he may have committed suicide. The source did not clarify how.
Our reader Christine Langhoff discovered an excellent analysis of the “compact” that the Trump administration has offered to several universities. A “compact” usually refers to an equitable agreement between two parties. The Trump “compact” is a harsh threat: sign or die.
Christine writes:
Here’s UCLA Law professor Joseph Fishkin on the so-called compact the administration want universities to accept.
Any lawyer—really, any careful reader—who makes it through even the first paragraph of the document can see that this is incorrect. The “compact” is quite explicit: Universities that do not sign on to this thing thereby “elect[] to forego federal benefits.” What benefits? Well, that same first paragraph lists quite a few specific “benefits”: “(i) access to student loans, grant programs, and federal contracts; (ii) funding for research directly or indirectly; (iii) approval of student and other visas in connection with university matriculation and instruction; and (iv) preferential treatment under the tax code,” which means 501(c)(3) status. This compact is a “reward” in exactly the same sense that it is “rewarding” to purchase protection from the Mafia. The compact is an open, explicit threat.
It nonetheless does represent a tactical shift on the part of the Trump Administration. The Trump team’s goal has not changed. They want an unprecedented—and flagrantly unconstitutional—degree of government oversight and control over American universities. So far they are having some trouble obtaining it. Their initial strategy, to roll up the sector from the top, starting with Harvard, through bespoke negotiated dealmaking with individual schools, has turned out to be slower going—and I suspect, simply more labor-intensive—than I am guessing they expected. (I use the rollup metaphor to evoke how a monopolist takes over a sector by buying out one firm after another, gaining more leverage over holdouts as they go. So far it has not worked.) Meanwhile, federal district courts have dealt a series of significant blows to the government’s ability to, for example, arbitrarily withdraw federal scientific research grants. So the administration is pivoting to a new tactic, which seems to be to roll up the higher ed sector from what you might call the upper middle. Instead of starting at the very top with the high-stakes confrontation with Harvard and working their way down, the new tactical approach is to start with whichever prestigious schools seem likeliest—for various reasons—to be amenable to the government’s overtures. It is no accident that many of the schools May Mailman’s team first approached about this “compact” have interim presidents, who are inherently weak, sometimes because a prior president was successfully forced out through political agitation by the right.
Greg Olear implores us not to allow Trump’s militarized violence against our fellow citizens to become normalized. Trump and Kristi Noem have organized a lawless army of thugs to terrorize us on the streets, in our workplaces, in our homes. This is not normal!
I’m excerpting his long article. Open the link and read it.
He writes:
I. #FTK, Origin Story: The ICE Gestapo Invades Chicago
I first heard about the ICE Gestapo’s military-style raid on the five-story apartment building on Chicago’s South Shore at 9:21 am on October 2, the morning after it happened. A concerned Chicago resident was kind enough to send me an email, alerting me to this disturbing development. He wrote:
ICE Agents Rappel From Black Hawk Helicopters Into Chicago for Major Raid
Trump has officially started “using” our own cities as “training grounds for the US Military.”
Federal agents rappelled from a Black Hawk helicopter onto the rooftops of Chicago residential buildings, launching a sweeping immigration enforcement operation targeting suspected Tren de Aragua gang members, according to NewsNation.
The FBI confirmed on Tuesday morning that they were helping U.S. Border Patrol, under the direction of Attorney General Pam Bondi.
It was hardly a “surprise raid”. This was for show—for intimidation—for TERROR. A large helicopter makes a LOT of noise—and many people ran. But those who stayed, because they had no reason to fear authorities, were given the criminal treatment instead.
My first instinct was to not believe it. I mean, Black Hawk helicopters? Over Chicago? In the middle of the night? Surely this must be one of those “fake news” stories designed to “trigger” the libs—a prank originating from some troll farm in Minsk. It can’tbe authentic, I assured myself. No no no.
Even after I searched the headline he’d sent, and found the story in Newsweek, I remained skeptical; that magazine is not what it used to be. But the second part of the email contained a lot more detail—way too much to invent. I verified the story, which came from ABC7, the local news affiliate in Chicago:
“My building is shaking. So, I’m like, ‘What is that?’ Then I look out the window, it’s a Blackhawk helicopter,” witness Dr. Alii Muhammad told ABC7 News.
Building resident Alicia Brooks said, “As I got to my unit to stick my key in the door, I was grabbed by an officer. And, I said, ‘What’s going on? What’s going on?’ He never actually told me. He said I was being detained.”
Neighbors like Eboni Watson say they ducked for cover as they heard several flash bangs.
“They was terrified. The kids was crying. People was screaming. They looked very distraught. I was out there crying when I seen the little girl come around the corner, because they was bringing the kids down, too, had them zip tied to each other,” Watson said. “That’s all I kept asking. What is the morality? Where’s the human? One of them literally laughed. He was standing right here. He said, ‘f*** them kids.’”
I sat at my laptop, dumbfounded, as both my blood and my coffee went cold. I knew it was real, but couldn’t quite believe it was real. So many horrific things have happened since January 20th that I’ve lost count, but nothing so far has affected me quite like this. I mean, “Fuck them kids?”
Watson said trucks and military-style vans were used to separate parents from their children. Other neighbors said agents destroyed property to get in the building.
Marlee Sanders said, “They had the Black people in one van, and the immigrants in another van.” Her boyfriend was taken in the raid. Officials have not released the number of arrests there were made, but witnesses estimate 30 to 40 people were taken.
ABC7 spoke to Pertissue Fisher, a woman who lives in the building. She said ICE agents took everyone in the building, including her, and asked questions later.
“They just treated us like we were nothing,” Fisher said.
Fisher said she came out to the hallway of her apartment complex on the corner of 75th and South Shore Drive in her nightgown around 10 p.m. Monday only to find armed ICE agents yelling “Police.”
“It was scary, because I had never had a gun in my face,” Fisher said. “They asked my name and my date of birth and asked me, did I have any warrants? And I told them, ‘No,’ I didn’t.”
Fisher said she was handcuffed before being released around 3 a.m., and she was told that if anyone had any kind of warrant out for them, even if it was unrelated to immigration, they would not be released.
Destruction was left behind inside the apartment complex, with doors blown off their hinges and holes left in the wall.
“They had a big, 15-inch chainsaw with round blade on it, cutting this fence down,” said witness Darrell Ballard. “We’re under siege. We’re being invaded by our own military.”
When I ran a Google search,1 I found that no one else seemed to have picked up the story. The big legacy-media outlets were yammering about God knows what, none of it remotely as important as this illegal operation.
Make no mistake: The ICE Gestapo raid was nothing less than an act of state-sanctioned terror—a loud-and-clear announcement that democracy, as we knew it, was officially over.
And still—still—I didn’t want to believe it.
But it really happened. Not only did it really happen, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, didn’t even have the common decency to deny it. On the contrary, DHS produced a slick video clip bragging about it, making it seem cinematic, heroic, cool—like a video game come to life. Dog-killing fascist Kristi Noem, who tweeted out the abominable thing, was clearly proud of this. Her post was ominous:
“Chicago,” she wrote, “we’re here for you.”
Here are some screenshots of the raid, which I encourage you to look at carefully:
It was all true: the Black Hawk helicopters, the dudes in military gear rappelling down, the mass arrests, the doors being broken down, the zip-ties, the public humiliation. In the video, DHS shows the faces of the men the ICE agents arrested, which no doubt will help their defense attorneys (assuming they are granted access to defense attorneys—no longer a safe assumption with Stephen Miller in charge).
But the damage has already been done.
I mean, little children were among those herded out of the apartments. Some of those children had theirhands zip-tied, too—by grown men decked out in enough military gear to occupy Fallujah.
And when a woman—an American citizen, not in any way affiliated with a gang, guilty of nothing more than living in Chicago, a city Trump hates because Obama’s from there—called out the ICE agents on their egregious lack of humanity, she was given the dismissive three-word response:
Fuck them kids.
The Trump regime has crossed yet another Rubicon. Now, the government can break down the front door of your house, drag you out of bed, zip-tie your hands behind your back, herd you into a van, and leave you there for hours and hours, without cause, without Miranda rights, without charge.
This is not fear-mongering. This is not speculation about what the Trump regime might do. This is happening. This has already happened. Here, in America. Nine months into the Trump Redux, and right on schedule, the fascist baby has been born.
Reading about this expression of brutal state tyranny, I was reminded of a passage in Defying Hitler, the Sebastian Haffner memoir about 1933 Germany:
The internal process was repressive terror: cold, calculated, official orders, directed by the state and carried out under the full protection of the police and the armed forces. It did not take place in the excitement following a victorious battle or danger successfully overcome — nothing of the kind had happened. Nor was it an act of revenge for atrocities committed by the other side — there had been none. What happened was a nightmarish reversal of normal circumstances: robbers and murderers acting as the police force, enjoying the full panoply of state power, their victims treated as criminals, proscribed and condemned to death in advance.
What we are seeing in Chicago the past 24 hours is a mere prelude. The official numbers of agents is nothing compared to the prisoners private contractors are releasing to kidnap, disappear and kill their fellow Americans. This suggests the covered faces are less about protecting the contractors and more about hiding from the public that prisoners are being used for this. Armed and set loose upon their fellow denizens on our streets.
This has yet to be confirmed by other news sources—but are other news sources, all of them owned by MAGA oligarchs, even interested at this point?
Plus, I mean, does it seem implausible? It’s clear ICE is staffed by poorly-trained, undisciplined, out-of-shape dipshits who barely know how to use their weapons. These losers have to come from somewhere.
But back to 1933 Germany. Haffner continues:
An example that became public knowledge because of its scale occurred some months later in the Cöpenick area of Berlin, where a Social Democratic trade unionist defended himself, with the help of his sons, against an SA patrol that broke into his home at night to “arrest” him. In obvious self-defense he shot two SA men. As a result, he and his sons were overcome by a larger troop of SA men and hanged in a shed in the yard that same night. The next day, the SA patrols appeared in Cöpenick, in disciplined order, entered the homes of every known Social Democrat, and killed them on the spot. The exact number of deaths was never made public.
Reading about masked men breaking down doors in the middle of the night and terrorizing an entire apartment complex, the Nazi-executed Social Democratic trade unionist is what sprung to mind.
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist
This is the path we’re headed down—and it is paved with the skulls of the dead.
Fuck them kids.
It occurred to me that those three words perfectly sum up the priorities of Donald Trump and the soulless ghouls running his administration: RFK, Jr., Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Russ Vought, and so on. Indeed, FUCK THEM KIDS might as well be Trump’s 2028 campaign slogan.
Those three words will, I hope, be (figuratively) seared onto the forehead of every member of this MAGA Nazi administration, like Aldo Raine carving up swastikas in Inglorious Basterds.
Herd immunity means that enough people in a group or area have achieved immunity (protection) against a virus or other infectious agent to make it very difficult for the infection to spread. Immunity happens in multiple ways: through natural infection, vaccination or passive transfer. Vaccination is the best way.
Every person who has immunity makes it harder for the infection to spread to other people. If you’re vaccinated, it’ll be harder for the virus to use you to infect other people or to mutate into a new variant. Higher numbers of immune people are needed to stop the spread if a virus is very infectious.
To achieve herd immunity, studies show, 95 percent of a given population must be vaccinated. But since Trump’s first term, vax rates have been declining.
“During the 2024-2025 school year, vaccination coverage among kindergartners in the U.S. decreased for all reported vaccines from the year before,” reads a report by the CDC, “ranging from 92.1% for diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) to 92.5% for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) and polio vaccine.”
Ninety-two seems like a high number—but it’s not high enough for herd immunity. In many communities, especially in rural areas and in red states, where MAGA disinformation is most effective, communities are no longer protected from the scourge of long-conquered childhood diseases.
And that was before Trump put the deranged, whale-beheading gourd husk known as RFK, Jr. in charge of the country’s public health policy.
Bobby is an antivaxxer. He’s already contributed to the 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa, where 83 people, most of them young children, died (in a country with a population of 200,000 people), when he traveled there and stoked antivax hysteria, with his prestigious Kennedy name and his noxious Kremlin talking points.
In a related story, Donald and Bobby have Made Measles Great Again. Per the CDC:
As of September 30, 2025, there have been a total of 1,544 confirmed measles cases reported in the United States. Among these, 1,523 measles cases were reported by 42 jurisdictions: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, New York State, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. A total of 21 measles cases were reported among international visitors to the U.S.
There have been 42 outbreaks reported in 2025, and 86% of confirmed cases (1,333 of 1,544) are outbreak-associated. For comparison, 16 outbreaks were reported during 2024 and 69% of cases (198 of 285) were outbreak-associated.
These outbreaks will only get worse, as the federal government continues to adopt antivax positions. South Carolina is only the latest state to have a measles outbreak.
This is a lot of data, I realize. A lot of statistics and numbers. But all you really need to know is this: In 2000, the World Health Organization declared that measles was eliminated in the United States—because of the success of the vaccines. Twenty-five years later, little children are once again dying of it.
The new conditions for federal funding the Trump administrationoffered to MIT put the school in a no-win situation, people on the Cambridge campus and throughout academia said Friday: Agree to the federal government’s terms and surrender some academic freedom, or refuse and risk further punishment.
The White House’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” — sent to MIT and eight other top-tier universitiesthis week — ties access to federal moneyto a string of conditions that, if agreed to,would effectuate the most substantial changes MIT has seen to dateand fundamentally transform an economic powerhouse of Greater Boston.
The 10-point document asks the list of schools — which also includes Brown and Dartmouth — to cap international student enrollment, freeze domestic tuition rates for five years, and commit to strict definitions of gender.Some of those requests, such as reducing tuition and the number of international students, are popular with many Americans. But others, including one to limit the speech of university employees, strike at the heart of freedom and independence that universities have long prized.
While MIT declined to comment, on campus and in academia, there doesn’t appear to be much inclination to make a deal with the White House.
The offer amounts to “a loyalty oath to the federal government,” said Catherine D’Ignazio, an MIT professor of urban studies and planning.
“They’re asking us to sacrifice science. They’re asking us to sacrifice international students. They’re asking us to sacrifice our trans students. They’re asking us to sacrifice our whole idea of shared governance,” D’Ignazio said. “No amount of money is worth that great long list.”
The mandate also says that universities should transform or abolish “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” That’s troubling, said Tyler Coward lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, because it conflates allowing speech with condoning violence.
“This mandate basically forces these institutions to remain silent in order to secure some government benefit,” Coward said. “I think that is a problem, a First Amendment problem.”
MIT is the birthplace for countless startup companies, forms the backbone of Kendall Square, and serves as a first landing place for many students — roughly 30 percent of whom come from abroad — who stay and build careers in Massachusetts.
Federal money plays a key role in seeding all that. Last year, MIT collected $648 million in government funding for sponsored activities, including research, which federal agenciescould simply choose to award elsewhere.
The provisions in the compact, said Sandy Baum, a higher education finance expert with the think tank The Urban Institute, amount to “dramatic requests” of MIT from a dollars-and-cents perspective.
MIT is already bracing for a $300 million reduction in its central budget from the newfound 8 percent tax on its endowment and potential losses of federal science funding that powers much of its massive research arm, university administrators said in a September staff forum. (A recording of the meeting was reviewed by the Globe.)
In the spring, MIT saved roughly $100 million by freezing hiring and instituting a 5 percent cut to department budgets. It plans to close the remaining $200 million gap by terminating some real estate leases and seeking outside private funding for some academic priorities, including climate change, life sciences, and artificial intelligence, according to details shared at the staff forum. Administrators said that they may also withhold merit raises for employees next year.
“We do need to treat the $300 million amount as a permanent burden on the central budget that requires a permanent budgetary solution,” Glen Shor, MIT’s executive vice president and treasurer said at the September meeting. “Even if power at some point changes hands in Washington, we can’t count on these policies being reversed.”
Meanwhile, signing onto the compact could impact the number of international students at MIT, who make up around 10 percent of its undergraduate population — less than the limit set in the agreement. (Around 40 percent of MIT graduate students are from abroad.) Many international students pay full price to attend MIT, which can cost nearly $90,000 between tuition, housing, and other expenses. MIT would also pledge to cover the cost of attendance for all students studying hard sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology.
“If [MIT] had to freeze tuition and limit [the] number of international students, that would be a huge hit,” said Baum, the university finance expert.
Multiple MIT student organizations signed a letter Friday asking MIT to “firmly refuse” to sign the document, claiming that “accepting such a compact would effectively destroy the institutional culture of MIT as we know it.”
Nadia Zaragova, a material sciences PhD student and vice president of the graduate student union, said it would give the federal government “undue oversight over what we do here at the university, including our classrooms, what we study, what we research.”
And Governor Maura Healey, who has proposed $400 million in state funding to help make up for lost federal funds to Massachusetts universities, urged MIT to stand strong, describing the White House offer as “yet another attempt by President Trump to silence speech.”
MIT supporters note the university has already taken up some measures pushed by the Trump administration, including winding down its Institute Community and Equity Office and taking disciplinary actions against students — including a commencement speaker — who participate in pro-Palestinian protests.
Indeed, MIT was chosen among the schools who received the compact because they are seen as “good actors,” according to May Mailman, senior adviser for special projects at the White House.
“They have a president who is a reformer or a board that has really indicated they are committed to a higher-quality education,” she said to The Wall Street Journal.
But Ian Hutchinson, an MIT emeritus professor and co-president of its Council of Academic Freedom, said that even those in favor of those moves have sour feelings about the new offer from the administration.
“Many of us on the council think that the modern academy needs to reform and [is] beginning to do so and that the compact has the risk of alienating a large fraction of the faculty,” he said.
Others fear that some professors could leave entirely, should the school sign onto the compact.
A better approach, Hutchinson added, would be if “the government makes clear what it is interested in funding in the way of research and what it is not interested in funding.”
The compact also frames preserving “single-sex spaces” such as bathrooms and locker rooms as necessary for “women’s equality” and stipulates institutions must commit to defining gender “according to reproductive function and biological processes.”
Mila Halgren, an MIT postdoctoral associate, said including such language is an affront to what the values of American higher education should be.
“In a personal capacity, every moment MIT even considers this compact is a betrayal of every marginalized group on campus,” she said. “That MIT did not immediately reject a proposal which defines trans people out of existence is shameful.”
Two scholars–Kimberlé Crenshaw and Jason Stanley–explain why Trump is censoring exhibits at the Smithsonian. He has also imposed censorship of signage and exhibits at other federal sites, including national parks. He has enlisted the U.S. Department of Educatuon to organize rightwing groups to create a “patriotic” civics course.
Kimberlé Crenshaw is an American civil rights advocate and a scholar of critical race theory. She is a professor at the UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School, where she specializes in race and gender issues
Jason Stanley is the Bissell-Heyd Chair in American Studies in the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto and the author of Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future
Trump and his far-right cabal are l trying to revise history and memory. Unless he abolishes or rigs future elections, all this tinhorn fascist censorship will be swept away by his successors. He will rightly be judged, when that day comes, as the closest thing this country has ever seen to having a dictator. He will be portrayed in the Smithsonian and the textbooks as a buffoon and a tyrant.
In a letter sent to Smithsonian secretary, Lonnie G Bunch III, on 12 August, the Trump administration announced its plan to replace all Smithsonian exhibits deemed as “divisive” or “ideological” with descriptions deemed as “historical” and “constructive”. On 21 August, just nine days later, the White House published a list of said offending fixtures – the majority of which include exhibits, programming and artwork that highlight the Black, Latino and LGBTQ+ perspectives on the American project. Included in his bill of particulars was an exhibit that rightly depicts Benjamin Franklin as an enslaver, an art installation that acknowledges race as a social construct and a display that highlights racist voter suppression measures, among others.
The assault on the Smithsonian comes wrapped, as it were, as part of a broader attack on democracy, scenes of which we see playing out every day. The federal occupation of Washington DC, the crackdown on free speech on campus, the targeting of Trump’s political opponents, the gerrymandering of democracy – these are interwoven elements of the same structural assault. So with many fires burning across the nation, concerned citizens who are answering the call to fight the destruction of democracy may regard his attack on history and memory as a mere skirmish, a distraction from the herculean struggle against fascism unfolding in the US. But this is a mistake. Trump’s attack on American museums, education and memory, along with his weaponization of racialized resentment to package his authoritarian sympathies as mere patriotism, is a critical dimension of his fascist aims. The fight for democracy cannot avoid it, nor its racial conditions of possibility.
Fascism always has a central cultural component, because it relies on the construction of a mythic past. The mythic past is central to fascism because it enables and empowers a sense of grievance by a dominant racial or ethnic group whose consent is crucial to the sustainability of the project. In Maga world, the mythic past was pure, innocent and unsullied by women or Black leaders. In this kind of politics, the nation was once great, a byproduct of the great achievements of the men in the dominant racial group. In short, the assault on the Smithsonian and, more broadly, against truthful history and critical reflection is part of the broader fascist attack on democracy.
From this vantage point, racial equality is a threat to the story of the nation’s greatness because only the men of the dominant group can be great. To represent the nation’s founding figures as flawed, as any accurate history would do, is perceived, in this politics, as a kind of treason.
The success of the fascist dismantling of democracy is predicated on the widespread systematic failure to see the larger picture. The anti-woke assault that is a key pillar of Trumpism is part of that failure, partly due to the racial blinders and enduring ambivalence of too many in positions of leadership in the media and elsewhere. Those who sign on to the attack on “wokeness” but regard themselves as opponents of the other elements of the fascist assault are under the mistaken assumption that these projects can be disaggregated. In fact, the dismantling of democracy and of racial justice are symbiotically entangled. To support one is to give cover for the others.
It is no coincidence that this ‘proper’ ideology Trump exposes is constitutive of a more well-known strand of fascism – nazism
It is clear that the Trump administration understands this relationship and fully weaponizes racist appeals as a foundational piece of its fascist agenda. And if this was once the quiet part, it is now pronounced out loud in official government documents. In an executive order issued on 27 March 2025 titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History”, Trump reveals that his mandate to ban “improper ideologies” targets core commitments repudiating a scientific racism that historically naturalized racial hierarchy thereby neutralizing resistance. According to Trump, the problem with the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s exhibit The Shape of Power: Stories of Race and American Sculpture was that it promoted the idea that “race is a human invention”.
The understanding that race is a social construct as opposed to a biological fact is perhaps the most fundamental advance in repudiating enslavement, genocide and segregation. Rejecting the idea that racial inequality is natural or pre-ordained – a claim that grounded enslavement and dispossession in America – forms the cornerstone of the modern commitment to a fully inclusive democracy. Trump’s declaration that this cornerstone is “improper” is an effort to turn the clock back, upending the entire American postwar project. It is no coincidence that this “proper” ideology Trump exposes is constitutive of a more well-known strand of fascism – nazism. How else can we understand why Maya Angelou was purged from the Naval Academy library while Adolf Hitler remains?
The fight against fascism in the US must be as robust in its embrace of racial equality as Trump’s embrace of outdated ideas about race and racism. The defense of memory, of truthful history, of telling the whole American story rather than ascribing agency in history to the deeds of “great men” is vital to the American democratic project. A pro-democratic education fosters the agency of its citizens by teaching about social movements that overturned entrenched hierarchies which blocked democratic equality and imposed racial tyranny. The story of how ordinary Americans lived and struggled and remade America is essential knowledge in developing and sustaining a multiracial democracy. The Smithsonian has been a vital institution in making this knowledge accessible to the masses. The National Museum of the American Latino and the National Museum of the American Indian, for example, provide artifacts and perspectives about the nation’s westward expansion that challenge the myth of unoccupied territory and manifest destiny. The National Museum of African American History and Culture brings forward the global scale of enslavement as well as its infusion across national institutions, culture and politics.
Diane Ravitch's blog 