

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It's 2025. No one should have to point out how evil and irrational it is for elected officials to smear an entire race or ethnic group because of the alleged criminals among them.
It happens almost every year.
An overblown, exaggerated, or manufactured controversy involving people of color, immigrants, Muslims—or all three at once—suddenly consumes America’s political discourse.
Remember the summer of 2010? Every media outlet spent the month of August in a frenzy over a Florida pastor's planned burning of the Quran in Florida and the expansion of Park51, a Muslim community center falsely branded the “Ground Zero mosque."
The flames of that controversy were stoked by fringe anti-Muslim bigots who were then elevated from the dark corners of the internet to cable news shows and weaponized by politicians ahead of the 2010 midterm elections.
When will we stop falling for this?
The hysteria over Park51 paved the way for a series of racially charged moral panics in the following years: the Obama “birther” conspiracy that culminated in 2011, the migrant caravans poised to invade the southern border in 2018, the viral videos that claimed to show Black election workers stealing the 2020 election, the stories about Haitian refugees eating pets in Ohio in 2024.
Since 2025, much of the manufactured outrage has targeted American Muslims. Anti-Muslim conspiracy theories that died out years ago have been resurrected by the usual suspects on social media along with politicians like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Even Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claimed that Americans Muslims are on the verge of imposing "sharia law" on Paterson, New Jersey, of all places.
Why this renewed obsession with Muslims?
A poll commissioned last year by the Israeli Foreign Ministry found that the best way to restore support for Israel among Western populations upset about the Gaza genocide was to distract those populations with fear of Islam and Muslims.
Hence why the Israeli government and its supporters have been whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria over the past year. They hope to achieve various goals at once: smearing American Muslims who criticize Israel First policies, shoring up Israel’s eroding support among political conservatives, and distracting the broader public from real issues, whether the Epstein files or the billions of US taxpayer dollars being poured into Israel’s war crimes.
Most recently, this campaign of hate against Muslims has taken the form of racist hysteria targeting Somali Americans, driven by a dishonest and largely debunked video circulated by a conservative social media influencer.
It's also important to recognize that the crimes Americans increasingly care about do not involve Somali-American day-care centers.
That influencer has shown up at Somali-run day-care centers and declared some of them fraudulent because they were empty after hours or because the staff refused to allow random men with cameras to come inside and see the children in their care. The consequences have been real and dangerous. Somali-run day-care centers and businesses have received threats. White supremacist copycats have appeared at childcare facilities demanding access to more children. Millions of dollars in federal childcare funding have been suspended, harming innocent families across Minnesota who rely on those services.
When will we stop falling for this?
Every one of these hate-driven campaigns follows the same pattern. A racist or bigot posts something inflammatory that goes viral. Media outlets amplify it. Politicians exploit it. Then, once the story collapses under scrutiny, the arsonists who started the fire walk away without accountability, only to search for the next group to target.
In this case, the Somali day-care hysteria may have crossed a legal line. While law enforcement has investigated and prosecuted legitimate cases of childcare fraud in Minnesota for years, many of the centers smeared in viral videos have never been accused of wrongdoing and are operating lawfully. Branding them as criminals and exposing them to threats could subject these social media influencers turned amateur detectives to lawsuits for defamation.
In the meantime, the rest of us must refuse to play along with this tired, racist scheme.
It's 2025. No one should have to point out how evil and irrational it is for elected officials to smear an entire race or ethnic group because of the alleged criminals among them. During the peak of the fight against the mafia, no president called for the expulsion of all Italian Americans. It would have been just as racist and insane to subject all Jewish American businessmen to extra scrutiny for the crimes of Bernie Madoff.
It's also important to recognize that the crimes Americans increasingly care about do not involve Somali-American day-care centers. Any Somali Americans and others who actually engaged in fraud are already facing investigation, and some were convicted years ago. Meanwhile, the corrupt officials funneling our taxpayer dollars overseas to support Israel's genocide in violation of federal law and the officials hiding documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes in violation of federal law are all walking free.
That is the real scandal—and the one that deserves our immediate attention.
By framing what’s occurring in Minnesota as ‘the Somali fraud network,’ the Trump administration is looking to legitimize its months-long attack on the Somali community and distract from its own unpopularity.
On December 26, YouTuber Nick Shirley posted a video entitled, “I Investigated Minnesota’s Billion Dollar Fraud Scandal.” So far, the video has amassed over 2 million views and has been lauded by major conservatives including Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance. Via Twitter, Vance posted that, “This dude has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 @pulitzercenter prize.”
In response to the outcry from this video, the Trump administration is reportedly freezing federal childcare funding across all states. Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill called the measure necessary given the “blatant fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country.” While each state will face new requirements to regain funding, Minnesota will be subject to stricter scrutiny.
This is a drastic response, especially since Shirley’s video didn’t reveal anything new. The Department of Justice (DOJ)—under both President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden—was already investigating fraud in Minnesota. In 2022, 47 people were charged for their role in a $250 million fraud scheme that exploited a federally funded nutrition program during the Covid-19 pandemic. Several news outlets had reported on allegations of fraud regarding federally funded childcare centers in Minnesota months prior to Shirley’s video.
Shirley also doesn’t discover any new evidence. This is unsurprising given his deeply flawed approach. For instance, in the video, Shirley and his crew visit several Somali-owned daycare centers and ask the workers: “Where are the children at? Are there children here today?” Even if fraud was occurring at the sites he visited, the workers’ refusal to take a stranger with a camera to see the kids reveals nothing. Maybe there were no kids present. Or maybe they are simply responsible workers protecting the safety of the children from a potential creep.
This is not about fraud. It’s not about justice. It’s poor political theater from a battered and desperate administration.
Ultimately, if widespread fraud is occurring anywhere, then the people responsible should be held accountable. The problem, however, is that this outrage is being manipulated by the Trump administration to further scapegoat the Somali community.
Consider for instance this comment made by Attorney General Pamela Bondi via Twitter-X. She writes that the DOJ has been investigating this alleged daycare fraud case for months. Thus far, the department has “charged 98 individual—85 of Somali descent—and more than 60 have been found guilty in court.”
There is no reason whatsoever for Bondi to draw attention to the ethnic or racial background of any of the people being charged. She is emphasizing that information in order to help fuel and justify the Trump administration’s xenophobia.
By framing what’s occurring in Minnesota as “the Somali fraud network,” the Trump administration is looking to legitimize their months-long attack on the Somali community. In December alone, President Trump remarked: “We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.” Vice President JD Vance said that Democrats “are not sending their best” in reference to Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh. He claimed that Fateh was Representative Ilhan Omar’s “candidate for mayor of Mogadishu. Wait, I mean Minneapolis.” US Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller shouted, “If Somalians cannot make Somalia successful, why would we think that the track will be any different in the United States?”
The Trump administration is exploiting public outrage to further its assault on immigrants and their families. Already House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) has called for deporting all Somalis linked to fraud in Minnesota, including naturalized citizens. He further adds, “Our nation will not tolerate those who take advantage of our charity and refuse to assimilate into our culture.” Putting aside that most fraud in the US is committed by white Americans, stipulating that the US will not tolerate those who fail to embrace US culture has far wider implications than punishing criminals. This is about punishing diversity.
This is also why the administration has moved to freeze all federal childcare funding. Again, this fraud was already known and is still being investigated. To implement a measure that so indiscriminately and callously harms Americans—during an affordability crisis—is meant to redirect people’s genuine frustrations with the Trump administration onto the Somali community.
They will be the scapegoats for Trump’s violence. And they are only the beginning. On December 31, Trump posted on Truth Social: “There is more FRAUD in California than there is in Minnesota, if that is even possible. When you add in Election Fraud, then they are tied for first. Two Crooked Governors, two Crooked States!”
Trump will capitalize on the public’s legitimate concerns about fraud to attack his political opponents, like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. He will use it to further villainize immigrants. After all, California is the state with the nation’s largest immigrant population—guess who will be blamed for fraud there?
Trump has regularly insisted that Democrats “use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens.” These fraud allegations provide him with the perfect opportunity to extend this false narrative. The fact that the DOJ’s investigation thus far has charged less than 100 people is irrelevant. Most of them are of Somali descent, and Minnesota’s governor is a Democrat (who just ran against him as Kamala Harris’ vice presidential pick). That’s all Trump and his allies care about.
This is not about fraud. A truly anti-fraud president would not commute the sentence of David Gentile, a private equity executive convicted for his role in a $1.6 billion Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors. As part of his pardon, Gentile will no longer be required to pay $15.5 million in restitution to his victims. Perhaps if Gentile were of Somali descent, then Trump would be more concerned with justice and respect for the law.
There is no legitimate rationale for withholding childcare funding from the entire country because of the actions committed by so few. Trump supporters might argue that this extreme measure simply demonstrates President Trump’s unwavering and firm commitment to law and order. That he is simply rooting out fraud from the system in the most direct way possible.
But if this is true, then why only take these measures after a YouTuber posts a video about it? Why wait until there is public outcry?
It’s because that outcry; these extreme measures; and this anti-Somali, xenophobic framing are all politically useful for the Trump administration. This is not about fraud. It’s not about justice. It’s poor political theater from a battered and desperate administration.
2025 was a difficult year for the country, and 2026 is starting off on a rough foot. As the midterm elections approach, the Trump administration will likely resort to more drastic and violent measures. We cannot give into despair. Trump is waging a battle of attrition against the American public. He wants us stressed, afraid, and divided. The only remedy is for us to remain vigilant, unyielding, and united.
Looking back at exemplary moments of American liberalism to counter MAGA rhetoric is an entirely understandable and even comforting move to make, but there is no golden age to return to.
Stephen Miller misses no opportunity to exult in racism and xenophobia. Friday’s Common Dreams headline gets right to the point regarding Miller’s most recent offense: “’Horrible Racist’ Stephen Miller Slammed for Using Classic TV Christmas Special to Bash Immigrants.”
Apparently Miller spent Christmas day watching a 1967 holiday special called “Christmas with The Martins and The Sinatras” and, being the miserable misanthrope that he is, the show—featuring Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra, two very famous children of first-generation Italian Americans—prompted him to wax nostalgic about a world in which America was Great and there was no mass immigration. Everything that Miller says or does deserves outrage, and his X post was no exception. One form the justified outrage has taken recently crossed my Facebook feed:

The Sinatra video that has gone viral is a clip from a 10-minute film short that premiered in November, 1945 called “The House I Live In.” It’s a powerful film, featuring a young and very charismatic Sinatra both speaking and singing against bigotry and for toleration and cultural pluralism.
The film begins with Sinatra, playing himself, in the studio recording a love song. He then takes a break, goes outside, and encounters a group of boys on an unnamed American city street who are very much modeled on Hollywood’s 1940s “Dead End Kids.” He finds them taunting a young, somewhat different-looking boy who is pretty clearly Jewish, and stops to interrupt the taunting and to engage them in conversation about the meaning of “America.”
When the boys inform him that they are bullying the (Jewish) boy because “we don’t like his religion,” Sinatra teases them: “You must be a bunch of those Nazi werewolves I’ve been reading about.” When one of the boys incredulously suggests he is “screwy” to think this, Sinatra replies: “Not me, I’m an American.” When the boys insist that they too are Americans, and one of them volunteers that his father had indeed been wounded in the war, Sinatra points out that the dad had probably needed a blood transfusion, and then points to the excluded boy: “Maybe his pop’s blood saved your dad’s life.”
Sinatra then delivers a monologue:
Look fellas. Religion makes no difference, except maybe to a Nazi or somebody who’s stupid. Why, people all over the world worship God in many different ways. God created everybody. He didn’t create one people better than another. Your blood’s the same as mine, mine’s the same as his. Do you know what this wonderful country is made of? It’s made up of a hundred different kinds of people and a hundred different ways of talking. A hundred different ways of going to church. But they’re all American ways. Wouldn’t we be silly if we went around hating people because they comb their hair different than ours?... My dad came from Italy. But I’m an American. But should I hate your father because he came from Ireland or France or Russia? Wouldn’t I be a first-class fathead?
He then tells them a story about how, after Pearl Harbor, American airmen had inspired the entire country by bravely bombing a Japanese battleship: “They sank it, and every American threw his head back and felt much better. The pilot of that ship was named Colin Kelly, an American and a Presbyterian. And you know who dropped the bombs? Meyer Levin, an American and a Jew. You think maybe they should have called the bombing off because they had different religions?”
Sinatra then heads back to the recording studio. But before entering, he stops to sing for the boys the song he is recording inside, “The House I Live In.” Here are the lyrics:
What is America to me?
A name, a map, the flag I see,
A certain word, "Democracy."
What is America to me?
The house I live in,
A plot of earth, a street,
The grocer and the butcher
And the people that I meet,
The children in the playground,
The faces that I see;
All races, all religions,
That’s America to me.
A place I work in
A worker by my side
A little town or city
Where my people lived and died
The howdy and the handshake
The air of feeling free
And the right to speak my mind out
That’s America to me
The things I see about me
The big things and the small
The little corner newsstand
And the house a mile tall
The wedding and the churchyard
A laughter and the tears
And the dream that’s been a growing
For 180 years
The town I live in
The street, the house, the room
Pavement of the city
Or a garden all in bloom
The church, the school, the clubhouse
The millions lights I see
But especially the people
That’s America to me.
Sinatra then smiles, returns to the studio, and the boys walk off together, inviting the Jewish kid to join them, while the music of “America the Beautiful” plays in the background.
The film is very powerful and uplifting. It is emblematic of the spirit of American liberalism in the immediate aftermath of WWII, a spirit perhaps symbolized by the stardom of Sinatra, the child of working-class Italian immigrants who grew up in Hoboken, New Jersey. Critics of Miller, and of President Donald Trump, are right to invoke the film, and to evoke the idealism of Rooseveltian liberalism, as a reproach to MAGA xenophobia.
At the same time, there are at least three important ways that the film exemplifies the limits of Rooseveltian idealism and the depth of the forms of illiberalism repudiated in the very lyrics of “The House That I Live In”—forms of illiberalism with which we are still reckoning today.
The first relates to the political circumstances surrounding the song itself. The music was written by Earl Robinson, a composer and folk musician from Seattle who belonged to the Communist Party from the 1930s through the 1950s; collaborated with Paul Robeson, Pete Seeger, and other well-known leftist artists and performers; and was blacklisted during the McCarthy period. And the lyrics were written by Lewis Allan, the pseudonym of Abel Meeropol, also a Communist at the time, who also composed the lyrics to “Strange Fruit,” the anti-lynching song made famous by Billie Holiday, and later adopted the sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after their parents were executed as Soviet agents in 1953.
Robinson and Meeropol were two of the hundreds of writers, artists, musicians, and performers who made seminal contributions to American culture during the 1930s and 1940s in connection with the Popular Front, described by historian Michael Kazin as “a vigorously democratic and multiracial movement in the arts and daily life that was sponsored but not controlled by the Communist Party.” The patriotic rhetoric of “The House I Live In”—both the song and the film—bears the traces of Popular Front leftism even as the connections to the left, and to anti-capitalism, were as disguised, and erased, as the actual name of the lyricist.
The second is the way in which the film’s repudiation of antisemitism, and its message of tolerance, is advanced—through an understandable anti-fascist patriotism that is juxtaposed to evil “Nazi werewolves” and invading “Japs.” Sinatra’s uplifting story of the bombing of the Japanese battleship Hiruma three times uses the racist term “Japs.” Erased from the story are some very memorable recent events: the wartime incarceration of well over 100,000 Japanese Americans; the 1945 American fire-bombing of Tokyo that killed over 100,000 Japanese civilians; and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, months before the film’s release. (It is worth nothing that the film’s producer-director, Mervyn Leroy, also produced the 1944 film “30 Seconds Over Tokyo,” a glorification of the 1942 “Doolittle Raid,” the first US bombing of Tokyo, starring Spencer Tracy). The film’s valorization of American democracy is thus linked to a racially-tinged narrative of American innocence with increasingly illiberal ramifications as the Cold War evolved.
And there is, finally, the striking fact that while Sinatra powerfully gives voice to the idea that “God created everybody, he didn’t create one people better than another,” and that “your blood’s the same as mine, mine’s the same as his,” every person in the film—Sinatra, the boys, the studio orchestra—is white.
To point these things out is not to disparage “The House I Live In,” a very important cultural creation that contained genuinely progressive elements while also condensing some of the contradictions of its time. It is simply to note the complexity of the recurrent historical contests over what it means to be “an American,” and the lack of innocence of even the most appealing episodes of the past. Trumpism is xenophobic, racist, deeply anti-liberal, and literally reactionary. Looking back at exemplary moments of American liberalism to counter MAGA rhetoric is an entirely understandable and even comforting move to make. Rewatching “The House I Live In” this holiday season was genuinely uplifting for me. But post-WWII liberalism at its height was no Golden Age, and we can no more return to it than we can to the time of Andrew Jackson, or William McKinley, or 1920s racist Madison Grant, or George Wallace, or Bull Connor, or whoever it is that warms Stephen Miller’s deformed and shriveled heart.