Hello, Fascism
Original article by Christopher Impiglia republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
It’s here. What should Democrats be doing now?
It’s here. Stop all the useless debate. Whether it’s a consolidating dictatorship, as Rachel Maddow says, or an illiberal democracy, or an electoral autocracy…
If masked and plainclothes secret police arresting undocumented immigrants, students, and citizens alike, including members of Congress, aren’t a clear enough indication, then the military takeover of Washington DC, citing lies about the crime rate, is.
America has become a fascist state. How fascist is irrelevant; the question serves only as an excuse, a way to tag out and wait for things to blow over. It’s not that bad.
So it’s here. It’s here thanks to President Donald Trump. What did we expect? It’s here thanks to his enablers, most prominent among them, Republican members of Congress. It’s here thanks to Republican voters and nonvoters alike, whose apathy in the last election should not be forgiven.
If anything, with approval ratings rock bottom, Democrats would be showing that they aren’t as feeble as they currently are and have been.
It’s here thanks to the ignorant and indifferent, the dumb and deluded, the hateful, scornful, spiteful, shortsighted, racist, militaristic, misogynistic, misguided…
Democrats—failed candidates and sitting representatives—are at fault too. For never putting up an effective fight despite all the warnings they gave us, despite all the warnings we gave them, pleading for proper change; who, even out of power, continue to resist with little ambition or desperation, strongly-worded letters a testament to what they are or have become: slaves to donors, the corporate class, and their own irrelevancy. Hello, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
This needs to change. It’s starting to, maybe. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has offered a bit more fight, but he feels so very performative, both eyes on the presidency. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker feels a bit more honest—maybe it’s the belly—but as a billionaire, he’s also part of the problem.
A few others seem genuinely genuine, and are channeling, for once, the frustration of those they represent—or hope to—which happens also to be their own, rather than chiding us or assuring us that all is well. Hello, Zohran Mamdani.
So there’s some hope, however slim. The midterms loom. Republicans are scared. Trump aside, whose handling of the Epstein scandal has isolated even the most MAGA, his policies are unpopular. They will only grow more unpopular as their effects kick in; they can’t all be delayed until after the midterms. The reality of them will only grow more stark as ordinary people begin to suffer and Republicans and Fox News struggle to skew the story, losing track of their own lies. But only if Democrats make a concerted effort to connect the dots.
Avoid Town Halls, Republicans have been advised. It’s easy to see why. The few representatives to hold them regardless have been heckled and booed, called out for what they are: liars. Shameful. They’ve been called worse.
They’re scared. Which is why the party is trying to gerrymander their way out of a potential midterm defeat, to secure the one-party system they crave, a facade of democracy that will allow them, like other autocracies, to persist.
It’s here where Democrats and even Independents—elected representatives and prospective ones, organizers, activists, celebrities, podcast hosts—should be filling the void. Be for once bold. Brave. Enough with echo chambers. Strike deep into the heart of Trump country. Spark debate and controversy; garner headlines by simply being there, everywhere there’s a microphone and a too-large, red hat, at least some of which are definitely made in China.
Book Town Halls and adjacent venues; stage protests and counterprotests; tour as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.) did, albeit under a less pretentious title… Fighting Oligarchy is like the polar opposite of Save Democracy, and we know how well that went… and explain, in the simplest terms, what we know is concerning people.
With cultural issues being a tad touchy—I get it—lead with economic, as Mamdani has been doing. We know how tariffs are hurting small businesses and big ones alike, like General Motors. How farmers are hurting. How tariffs are ensuring inflation remains high. How the Big Beautiful Bill Act will cut taxes for the rich and healthcare and food programs for those struggling to get by. How Trump has no plan regarding in vitro fertilization. How the wars in Ukraine and Gaza go on…
Name every single broken promise. Follow with the Epstein scandal. Repeat Trump’s own words: “terrific guy,” “A lot of fun to be with.” Show him partying with the pedophile. Over and over again. Show how he’s just another golf-loving nepo baby, a member of the Swamp as well the cabal of pedophiles—at least a sympathizer—he was entrusted to destroy; has he not floated a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell? Moved her to Club Fed? Hint how he’s complicit, harnessing the conspiracy theories his supporters have themselves created. Challenge them to find, if they can and want to, the most twisted justifications.
There’s just so much to go on outside the more nuanced ways in which the current administration is unraveling not just democracy—which we don’t even need to mention—but what truly makes America great: economic opportunity, stability… Betrayal cuts deep.
Let the wounds fester, and we might find that something resonates, ripples outwards, flowers, flourishes, that seed of doubt; even if the most dug in refuse to admit that they were wrong, scammed, grifted… then at least the more moderate or indifferent can come around, inspiring, if not a popular revolt, than enough votes or nonvotes to turn the tide when the time comes.
If anything, with approval ratings rock bottom, Democrats would be showing that they aren’t as feeble as they currently are and have been. That, even if they believe in progressive policies more conservative voters may not agree with, like trans rights, women’s rights, due process for undocumented immigrants, or stricter gun laws, they also believe in a familiar, free, and safe, bountiful America.
So it’s here: fascism. The best we can do now is ensure it’s short lived.
Original article by Christopher Impiglia republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Trump Plan to Deploy National Guard in DC Called ‘Giant, Red Trial Balloon’
Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
(Photo: Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
“Trump’s move to mobilize the National Guard against Americans in D.C. is another telltale sign of his authoritarian ambitions,” said Democratic Illinois congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh.
U.S. President Donald Trump is planning to send up to 1,000 members of the National Guard to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C. this week in a move that critics are warning is another step toward authoritarian rule.
In a post on his Truth Social page on Monday morning, Trump framed the decision to deploy the National Guard as necessary to combat crime in the nation’s capital.
“Washington, D.C. will be LIBERATED today!” Trump claimed. “Crime, Savagery, Filth, and Scum will DISAPPEAR. I will, MAKE OUR CAPITAL GREAT AGAIN! The days of ruthlessly killing, or hurting, innocent people, are OVER!”
However, the president’s claim that the National Guard is needed to protect Washington, D.C. residents from purportedly unprecedented criminal violence does not hold water given that the city has seen a dramatic fall in crime recently. As noted by CBS News reporter Scott MacFarlane, violent crime in Washington, D.C. has fallen by 26% over the last year, highlighted by total homicides declining by 12% year-over-year.
In analyzing the news, some legal analysts were quick to label Trump’s latest move a power grab that was wholly unjustified by the facts on the ground.
Joyce Vance, the former United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, argued on her Substack page that Trump’s decision to plow ahead with deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C. shows he “is going full bore to push the power of the presidency, even if it means ignoring actual statistics on crime that contradict his stated justification for acting in the nation’s capital.”
Vance added that Trump’s actions in this instance also need to be understood as part of a broad sweep by the president to seize more power for the executive branch.
“In case you’re wondering, just six months into his second term, Trump holds a commanding lead in the number of executive orders issued,” she wrote. “These statistics from The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara show the totals for each president in light blue, so, in the first six months of his second term, Trump has signed 186 orders, compared to a four-year total of 162 for Joe Biden.”
Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck explained on his own Substack page that Trump does have some significant powers when it comes to deploying the D.C. National Guard in the nation’s capital, although he said that the law clearly prevents him from “federalizing” the city as he has threatened to do in the past.
“The president does have two important authorities when it comes to ‘local’ law enforcement in the District of Columbia: He can use the (small) D.C. National Guard in circumstances in which he probably couldn’t use any other military personnel; and he can require the use of [the Metropolitan Police Department] ‘for federal purposes’ for up to 30 days,” he wrote. “That’s not nothing, but it also isn’t anything close to some kind of federal takeover of the nation’s capital.”
To actually do a federal takeover of Washington, D.C., Vladeck continued, the president would need to get an act passed through Congress that would almost certainly be filibustered in the U.S. Senate.
Legal experts weren’t the only ones alarmed by the planned Trump National Guard deployment.
Karen Attiah, a columnist for The Washington Post, warned her Bluesky followers against writing off the deployment as an effort by the president to distract from his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
“Threats of the militarization of cities—including D.C., which has been fighting for self determination for generations—isn’t a ‘distraction,'” she said. “It’s a massive, giant, red trial balloon for what an American president can do [in] YOUR city… I need people to wake up.”
Kat Abughazaleh, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Illinois, similarly warned that Trump’s National Guard deployment could be a blueprint for the rest of America.
“Trump’s move to mobilize the National Guard against Americans in D.C. is another telltale sign of his authoritarian ambitions,” she wrote on Bluesky. “But at some point signs of authoritarianism stop being signs and become symptoms of an autocratic regime. We’re far past that point now.”
Trump Says ‘Other Cities Are Hopefully Watching’ as He Deploys National Guard, Takes Over DC Police
Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
(Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
“The administration’s actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful,” declared Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday moved to deploy the National Guard on the streets of Washington, D.C., while also officially taking over the city’s police department.
What’s more, Trump suggested that this could be a model for other American cities.
As reported by NBC News, Trump said during his announcement on plans to deploy the National Guard in the nation’s capital that “other cities are hopefully watching this” and that he hoped it would make them “self-clean up, and maybe they’ll self-do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem.”
Trump then named Baltimore, Oakland, New York, and Chicago as potential future targets for National Guard deployments and other measures.
Shortly after Trump made his announcement, Washington, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb indicated that he was not taking the president’s attempt to take over his city’s police force lying down.
“The administration’s actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful,” he declared in a post on X. “There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia. Violent crime in D.C. reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year. We are considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents.”
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) was also quick to condemn the president’s takeover of D.C. law enforcement as an unnecessary power grab.
“The president’s attempt to federalize the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and deploy the National Guard on the streets of our nation’s capital is an abuse of power,” she said. “It’s an egotistical, pathetic attempt to stoke fear and distract from his failures: America is less affordable, healthy, and safe under this administration.”
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who last year served as the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nominee, chided critics who had accused him in the past of exaggerating the authoritarian threat of a second Trump term.
“The road to authoritarianism is littered with people telling you you’re overreacting,” he wrote on X.
The NAACP, meanwhile, compared Trump’s enthusiasm for deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C. to purportedly battle crime with the lackadaisical attitude he took toward deploying the National Guard when his supporters violently stormed the United States Capitol building on January 6, 2021.
“As a reminder: The same president who proclaims he wants to take back our capital during a historic 30-year low crime rate also couldn’t find the National Guard on Jan. 6,” the organization wrote.
Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman issued a joint statement slamming Trump’s actions and outright labeling him a “despot.”
“As autocrats commonly do, Trump is seeking control over the national capital in order to intimidate and squelch dissent,” they said. “Like despots around the world and throughout history, Trump is also relying on the pretextual deployment of military force to intimidate and project power, to suppress protest and undercut democracy.”
As reported by Politico, Trump’s seizure of the D.C. police is on borrowed time from a legal perspective. While the Home Rule Act gives Trump the power to take control of the D.C. police force for emergencies, this power only lasts for 30 days, after which he must seek authorization from Congress to maintain control.
‘This Isn’t Normal!’ Secret Pentagon Plan for Troops to Put Down Local ‘Unrest’ Nationwide
Original article by Jon Queally republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
“If people aren’t allowed to peacefully protest and the elections are being rigged through gerrymandering and voter suppression, how are Americans supposed to respond when they figure out their lives are being actively destroyed by a corrupt, fascist government?”
Internal documents obtained by The Washington Post and reported on Tuesday reveal a secret Pentagon plan by the Trump administration to create a standing force of military personnel that could be rapidly deployed to U.S. cities or communities to quell public protests or any situation President Donald Trump deems “domestic civil unrest.”
The proposal to create what it dubs a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force”—which evidence shows has been under serious consideration by the administration over recent months—would utilize existing statute, including invocation of Title 32, to authorize the deployment of specialized National Guard units anywhere in the country within hours, according to the documents.
According to the Post:
The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour, the documents say. They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively.
“This isn’t normal!!!” declared one social media user, a U.S. Navy veteran, in response to the reporting.
The leaked documents detailing the plan, which the Post noted “represents another potential expansion of [Trump’s] willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil,” comes just a day after the president sparked serious concerns (and local protests) by deploying National Guard troops in the city of Washington, D.C. and announcing a federal takeover of the D.C. police force.
Civil liberties advocates and critics of Trump’s growing authoritarianism warn the president is raising “a trial balloon” to see just how much he can get away with when it comes to deploying U.S. soldiers onto the nation’s streets.
Coupled with the D.C. takeover, Tuesday’s revelations about the Pentagon’s more expansive plan served to increase those fears, especially in the light of looming political battles regarding gerrymandered districts for next year’s congressional elections and growing disgust with the broader Trump policy agenda.
“If people aren’t allowed to peacefully protest and the elections are being rigged through gerrymandering and voter suppression, how are Americans supposed to respond when they figure out their lives are being actively destroyed by a corrupt, fascist government?” asked Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Larson, a Democrat.
“The U.S. military should never be used against peaceful civilians,” said Larson. “The criminal president who thinks it’s cool can f*ck all the way off.”
Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice specializing in the domestic use of the U.S. military, told the Post that the lawfulness of the proposal is far from clear and that the creation of such a force would be deeply troubling.
“You don’t want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement,” Nunn warned. “You don’t want to normalize routine domestic deployment.”
“When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you’re going to want to use it,” he added. “It actually makes it more likely that you’re going to see domestic deployments—because why else have a task force?”