SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
steve bannon
As Trump and Musk Flood the Zone, Solidarity Is Our Life Raft
When they manufacture chaos to divide us, we must recognize it as a desperate attempt to prevent us from building the collective power they fear.
Feb 07, 2025
These first 100 days in any presidency is a statement. A statement made for one's supporters who then cheer in response. U.S. President Donald Trump made a clear statement when he pardoned everyone involved in the assault on the capitol on January 6, 2021. Many have become concerned the message is that political violence on behalf of Trump will be forgiven, condoned, and even encouraged. No doubt his most fervent supporters are receiving the message and have already vowed revenge.
During these first 100 days the messages are also for those who did not vote for the president. Past administrations have often gone to extremes to find a way to include someone in their cabinet from the opposite party, an expression of a political olive branch, a promise to work together, across differences in priorities and ideologies. Here, Trump is sending the message that anyone who has ever even as much as thought in ways that were not in favor of him are in danger, in danger of losing their jobs, and even in physical danger as he prioritized removing security clearances from Gen. Mark Milley and Dr. Anthony Fauci.
We are receiving statements, and many of us are left with a set of chaotic destructions to try to untangle and make sense of. The shock and awe, the flooding of the zone that Steve Bannon and others have articulated is playing out. We know their playbook, yet we find our emotions played with regardless. As an already exhausted Stephen Colbert noted on his show on January 30, this isn't our first rodeo. We know how they will push us around with the 24-hour disorienting news cycle, yet somehow we're still receiving a concussion. Even when we can anticipate trauma, it doesn't negate the impact on our bodies—individual and collective.
Trump's entertaining charades, his absurdly chaotic and nonsensical yet mesmerizing performance, leaves us breathless and tells us a lie about our neighbors being our enemies rather than our greatest assets.
On January 29, we saw 67 bodies, 67 lives become extinguished in a tragic crash where an army helicopter crashed into plane landing from Wichita, Kansas in D.C. The country grieved the unimaginable. The first major airline incident since 2009. I know most of us held each other extra close at the news, and our hearts broke for all those whose future would never be the same, who are enduring the unimaginable grief of losing someone who is everything to them.
Yet before families could even begin to process their losses, with a racist and ableist fervor, Trump seized this tragedy as another opportunity to divide us. Without evidence, he blamed diversity initiatives and disabled people—a claim that is unabashedly in opposition of reality. The New York Times reported that staffing shortages are the more pressing concern, with federal agencies struggling for years to fill key positions at the Federal Aviation Administration. The type of staffing that had one air traffic control worker managing both helicopters and planes is reportedly not uncommon, pointing to systemic issues rather than Trump's manufactured and dangerous crisis about diversity in the workplace.
This administration's strategy is clear: Create chaos, place blame on marginalized communities, and hope we're too exhausted to see through the smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, federal workers are being pressured—by Elon Musk's DOGE initiative no less—to accept questionable "Fork in the Road" resignation offers, further destabilizing our institutions and the people who keep them running. Ironically these resignations are being forced as a way to save money while Elon Musk's company Tesla paid $0 in taxes in 2024.
The cruel irony is that diversity actually strengthens teams and improves performance—this isn't just rhetoric, it's backed by extensive research. Recent McKinsey studies show companies committed to diversity demonstrate a 39% increased likelihood of outperformance. Diverse teams bring unique perspectives that unlock innovation, enhance problem-solving, and create environments where everyone feels empowered to contribute their full expertise. When we artificially limit who can participate, we all lose.
But this administration isn't interested in evidence-based policy. If they were, we would see very different approaches across the board. Take trans healthcare, for example. The American Medical Association has explicitly stated that gender-affirming care is medically necessary, warning that "forgoing gender-affirming care can have tragic consequences." They've urged governors to oppose legislation prohibiting such care for minor patients, calling it "a dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine." Yet instead of following medical expertise, we see continued demonization of trans youth and their families. This assault on evidence extends further—a harrowing war on science has been unleashed, with Trump officials now targeting even basic terms like "gender" and "disability" through the National Science Foundation.
As this administration wages war on scientific language and evidence-based policy, there is much chaos to weed through, and it is hard to know what to pay attention to. So much of these performances are really designed to exhaust us. To leave us feeling defeated. There are lots of questions about what resistance looks like at a time like this. Even questions as to whether resistance is possible.
My answer to these questions is: Of course there is resistance. In fact, there is what indigenous scholar Gerald Vizenor termed survivance. Right now, surviving IS resistance. When so many of our neighbors are directly threatened, their joy and their existence IS resistance.
These tactics from Trump and Musk are pointing toward how we need to strategize as a response. We need a politics of solidarity. Solidarity means seeing that for most of us who hold complex identities, we are seeing our rights be whittled away. This administration is deploying transparent strategies to turn us against one another even as we see the way elite billionaires—the same ones standing behind him during the inauguration, obstructing the view of his future cabinet—are the only ones likely to thrive. The price of eggs is not going down. Tariffs on our closest neighbors, and our greatest allies, have been put on a pause after another frantic performance that ate up airwaves, yet they loom—leaving the possibility of, in the near future, increasing prices on basic necessities in the United States due to these tariffs. Most of us who are not elite billionaires are unlikely to see our quality of life improve.
Yet, Trump's entertaining charades, his absurdly chaotic and nonsensical yet mesmerizing performance, leaves us breathless and tells us a lie about our neighbors being our enemies rather than our greatest assets. He wants us to forget that we need each other—that our strength lies in our connections, our differences, our willingness to stand together.
There is a lesson here, an insight into what we need to survive, what we need to ensure everyone in our community is safe, and also an insight into what one strategy of dehumanization is for this administration. When they blame disabled people for an awful tragedy like the plane crash on January 29, we must recognize disabled people as vital assets to our communities. When they deny healthcare to trans youth, we must loudly and actively speak out in support of our trans friends, neighbors, and family members. When they vilify immigrants, we must remember that we are—as the poet Gwendolyn Brooks wrote—each other's harvest.
But let's be clear: The road ahead will be brutal. As more of us face direct threats to our lives and livelihoods, things will likely get worse before they get even worse. Many of us—disabled people, trans youth, people of color, immigrants, women, educators, dedicated federal workers, and others targeted by this administration—are not safe, and that's not hyperbole. That's precisely why solidarity isn't just a nice ideal—it's a survival strategy. When they manufacture chaos to divide us, we must recognize it as a desperate attempt to prevent us from building the collective power they fear. When they try to exhaust us, we must lean on each other. When they push policies that threaten our very existence, we must hold onto each other tighter.
Our solidarity is not based on naive optimism but on the clear-eyed understanding that we cannot survive alone. In these dangerous times, coming together isn't just an option—it's our only path forward. They want us isolated, exhausted, and afraid. Instead, we choose each other. We choose to recognize that our disabled neighbors make our communities stronger. We choose to stand with trans youth and their families. We choose to see immigrants as vital to our collective future. This is not the easy path—it's the necessary one. And while solidarity alone cannot guarantee our safety, it remains our best defense against those who would rather see us divided and conquered.
Keep ReadingShow Less
MAGA's Global Roots: Why 'America First' Isn't American
To effectively counter MAGA, it must be accurately framed, not as an embodiment of American exceptionalism, but as part of a global populist strategy.
Jan 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's early actions in his second term under the "Make America Great Again," or MAGA, banner prioritized populist rhetoric over national interests. Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization further isolated the United States and eroded its global leadership. Domestically, policies like federal hiring freezes, attempts to redefine birthright citizenship, and pardons for January 6 participants deepened national divisions and hindered effective governance. Meanwhile, rolling back protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or removing resources like the reproductiverights.gov website directly targeted "unworthy" groups of Americans. Although these actions energized his base, they sacrificed long-term stability and progress for short-term political gains. Beneath the "America First" rhetoric, these divisive policies weakened the country both at home and abroad.
The MAGA movement, championed by Trump during his 2016 campaign, is often framed as a uniquely American phenomenon. With promises to restore manufacturing jobs, secure borders, and challenge global elites, MAGA tapped into deep-seated grievances within the American electorate. However, while its slogans and imagery evoke American exceptionalism, its ideological and strategic foundations are not exclusive to the United States. Instead, MAGA represents a chapter in the global populist playbook that has been refined and exported across borders in recent decades.
To effectively counter MAGA, it must be accurately framed, not as an embodiment of American exceptionalism, but as part of a global populist strategy. Democrats and other opponents have struggled to expose its true nature, allowing it to masquerade as a grassroots response to American grievances. In reality, MAGA draws heavily from international populist tactics, employing nationalism, scapegoating, and anti-globalist conspiracy theories to consolidate. This is not about a secret "populist cabal" but about recognizing the shared strategies of political programs to counter them effectively. This challenge extends to all activists and policymakers working to counter MAGA's agenda of racism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism.
By recognizing MAGA as part of this global trend, its origins, contradictions, and vulnerabilities become clearer, providing a critical framework for countering its divisive agenda.
Recognizing MAGA's universal nature highlights its contradictions. While claiming to champion "the people," it advances policies that benefit elites, marginalize vulnerable communities, and undermine protections for workers and the environment. Situating MAGA within the broader context of global populism dismantles its American exceptionalist narrative, exposing its rhetoric as hollow and manipulative. This reframing is essential to addressing the systemic issues MAGA exploits and protecting democracy from its corrosive impact.
At its core, MAGA embodies a classic populist framework, dividing society into two opposing groups: the "pure" people and the "corrupt" elites or perceived enemies. While rooted in American political history, its binary "us vs. them" rhetoric mirrors strategies employed by populist leaders worldwide. MAGA's blend of nationalism, anti-immigration policies, economic protectionism, and cultural grievances aligns with populist campaigns in regions as diverse as Europe and Latin America. From Viktor Orbán's nationalist agenda in Hungary to Marine Le Pen's rebranding of far-right politics in France, the tools and messaging of modern populism have become strikingly uniform across borders. Far from an organic response to collective grievances, it is a calculated political strategy tailored to the cultural and domestic contexts of each country.
Much of MAGA's populist DNA can be traced to the political consulting work of Paul Manafort, a pivotal figure in Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. Before working with Trump, Manafort refined his strategies in Ukraine, where he advised pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych, who was later deposed following the Maidan protests and the Revolution of Dignity. Yanukovych's campaigns relied on nationalism, cultural division, and anti-elite rhetoric to consolidate power. These were tactics Manafort later brought to Trump's campaign, including the use of disinformation, targeted messaging, and framing Trump as an outsider fighting entrenched elites.
Manafort first entered Ukrainian politics during the Orange Revolution of 2004, when widespread protests erupted over electoral fraud favoring Yanukovych in a contentious runoff election. Following massive demonstrations, Ukraine's Supreme Court annulled the results and ordered a revote, which resulted in a decisive victory for Yanukovych's opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. While Manafort's initial efforts failed, his subsequent tenure as a campaign consultant for Yanukovych and the Party of Regions proved more successful.
Manafort is widely credited with shaping the Party of Regions' slogans and political rhetoric, emphasizing themes like the "threat of NATO" and the "suppression of the Russian language in Ukraine." These strategies deepened cultural and linguistic divisions within Ukraine, particularly alienating Russian-speaking communities in the country's east. He also crafted slogans appealing to national pride and promises of immediate improvement, such as "Improving Your Life Already Today" (Ukrainian: "Покращення життя вже сьогодні"). This approach sought to resonate with citizens' desire for swift change while portraying Yanukovych as the champion of "Ukraine first" policies in contrast to his rival, then-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
The Party of Regions portrayed Tymoshenko's pro-European integration agenda as a threat to Ukraine's sovereignty and traditional values. Their rhetoric suggested that closer ties with NATO and the E.U. would usher in liberal policies, including those supporting LGBTQ rights, which they argued would undermine Ukraine's cultural identity. By framing Western institutions as cultural aggressors, the Party of Regions positioned itself as a defender of national values, effectively galvanizing conservative segments of the population against perceived external threats.
Manafort also orchestrated sophisticated disinformation campaigns to undermine Tymoshenko and then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This included creating a fake think tank to spread negative narratives through media outlets and manipulating online platforms to disseminate false information. Tymoshenko, like Yushchenko before her, was branded as a pro-American radical who prioritized foreign interests over Ukraine's well-being. These tactics, honed in Ukraine's politically fractured environment, were later adapted to resonate with the grievances and cultural divides of the American electorate.
While Manafort's role in shaping Trump's campaign was significant, his strategies are part of a broader international trend. MAGA's populism is not a spontaneous eruption of uniquely American discontent but a chapter in the global populist playbook. From exploiting cultural divisions to leveraging "anti-globalist" conspiracy theories, these methods have been employed, refined, and exported by populist leaders worldwide.
Understanding MAGA within this international context underscores the interconnected nature of modern politics, where ideas and strategies transcend national boundaries to influence movements across diverse cultural and political landscapes. By recognizing MAGA as part of this global trend, its origins, contradictions, and vulnerabilities become clearer, providing a critical framework for countering its divisive agenda.
Thousands of miles away from the U.S., a supporter of Romanian far-right candidate Călin Georgescu, who campaigned under a "Romania First" slogan, starkly declared: "She [Elena Lasconi] will pass a law on marriage between two men, I cannot accept such a thing," while asserting that Romania needed "a capable man to lead us, not a woman." Statements like these exploit cultural anxieties to galvanize conservative support, a hallmark of global populist movements.
The early 2000s marked the rise of a powerful wave of populism across Europe, fueled by economic stagnation, cultural insecurities, and widespread disillusionment with traditional political elites. This period saw far-right movements rebranding themselves as defenders of the "ordinary citizen" against globalist, technocratic, and multicultural agendas. Leaders such as Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Matteo Salvini in Italy capitalized on these dynamics, reshaping the political landscape through nationalist rhetoric and anti-immigrant sentiment.
Marine Le Pen's leadership of the National Front (later renamed National Rally) exemplified the far-right's strategic makeover. While her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, had built the party on overt racism and xenophobia, Marine sought to soften its image without abandoning its core nationalist message. She framed immigration—particularly from Muslim-majority countries—as a threat to French identity and values, tapping into fears of cultural erosion.
Le Pen also embraced Euroscepticism, portraying the European Union as a bureaucratic overreach that undermined France's sovereignty. By combining economic protectionism with cultural grievance, she expanded the party's appeal beyond far-right fringes, positioning it as a populist alternative to the French political establishment.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom adopted an equally divisive platform. Wilders presented himself as a staunch defender of Dutch culture, depicting immigration and multiculturalism as existential threats. His rhetoric painted Islam as incompatible with Western values, using inflammatory language to link immigration with terrorism.
Wilders also criticized the European Union, framing it as an elitist institution disconnected from ordinary citizens. Like Le Pen, he weaponized nationalist sentiments to challenge liberal democratic norms, portraying his movement as a bulwark against an overly accommodating political elite.
In Southern Europe, populism took on a more authoritarian tone under leaders like Matteo Salvini. As head of the League (formerly the Northern League), Salvini shifted the party's focus from regional separatism to a nationalist agenda. He vilified immigrants, often blaming them for economic hardship and cultural decline.
Salvini's rhetoric resonated deeply with Italian voters grappling with the aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis. His rise to prominence illustrated how economic grievances and cultural fears could be weaponized to undermine establishment parties. Salvini also positioned himself as a critic of European integration, calling for stronger national sovereignty and rejecting E.U.-imposed policies.
Across the Atlantic, Trump's 2016 campaign borrowed heavily from the European populist playbook. Trump frequently employed anti-Muslim rhetoric, framing Muslim communities as security threats and proposing a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States. This culminated in the so-called Muslim Ban, a series of executive orders restricting travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.
Trump justified these policies as necessary for national security, leveraging fear and xenophobia to energize his base. Simultaneously, he criticized global institutions like the United Nations, portraying it as an encroachment on American sovereignty. This "America First" rhetoric closely mirrored themes seen in Viktor Yanukovych's pro-Russian campaigns in Ukraine, where nationalism and cultural division were used to consolidate power.
Trump's populist appeal also pitted him against establishment Republicans, a trend that had gained momentum during the Tea Party movement. By labeling establishment figures as "Republicans in Name Only" (RINOs), Trump positioned himself as the voice of disenfranchised Americans battling entrenched elites.
The European populist wave demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt its messaging to local contexts while drawing on common themes of nationalism, anti-globalization, and cultural conservatism. Leaders like Le Pen, Wilders, and Salvini pioneered tactics that not only reshaped their own political landscapes but also provided a blueprint for populist movements worldwide.
The modern American populist movement that evolved into MAGA traces its roots to the Tea Party, a movement that rose to prominence in the late 2000s with significant backing from the Koch network. Many of Trump's staunchest supporters within the Republican Party have roots in the Tea Party, highlighting a continuity of populist sentiment. Studies have shown that individuals who supported the Tea Party in the early 2010s were more likely to align with Trump's agenda in subsequent years, demonstrating the movement's lasting influence on the Republican Party's ideological trajectory.
A key figure in this transition was Steve Bannon, the co-founder of Breitbart News and later the CEO of Trump's 2016 campaign. Breitbart News played a pivotal role in promoting Tea Party ideas and candidates, amplifying the movement's anti-establishment and nationalist messaging. By the mid-2010s, Bannon was leveraging the momentum of the Tea Party to advance a more explicitly nationalist agenda, aligning himself with Trump and broadening the scope of American populism.
Bannon's strategic vision extended beyond the United States. He actively sought to unify and strengthen populist movements in Europe, forging connections with right-wing parties and leaders. His efforts aimed to create a global network of populist movements united by shared principles of nationalism, anti-globalism, and opposition to progressive international institutions. By fostering these alliances, Bannon sought to build a cohesive international populist front that could challenge the global liberal order.
By understanding its connections to international populism, it becomes clear that MAGA is a calculated political construct rather than a genuine grassroots movement.
The transition from the Tea Party to MAGA underscores the evolution of modern American populism. While the Tea Party emphasized economic grievances and a distrust of government, MAGA expanded its appeal through cultural and nationalist rhetoric, effectively reshaping the Republican Party's identity. Bannon's role as a bridge between these movements highlights the deliberate efforts to harness and repurpose the Tea Party's energy for a broader populist agenda.
By situating MAGA within this lineage and connecting it to international populist trends, it becomes clear that modern populism is neither a spontaneous phenomenon nor a uniquely American one. Instead, it reflects a calculated and evolving strategy that draws from shared grievances and ideological frameworks to build power both domestically and globally.
Alexander Dugin, the Russian political philosopher and architect of Eurasianism, has played a significant role in shaping contemporary populist ideology. His Fourth Political Theory rejects the supremacy of liberal democracy, offering an alternative that combines traditionalism with elements of socialism and nationalism. This framework provides ideological backing for populist leaders seeking to distance themselves from Western liberal values, advocating a return to traditional cultural and religious norms.
A similar narrative has emerged in the United States, where "liberal values" are portrayed as an external, malevolent force threatening Western traditions. This narrative creates a shared ideological foundation among global populist movements, highlighting their interconnected strategies while adapting to different cultural contexts.
The convergence of these ideologies highlights a broader trend in modern populism: the collaboration and exchange of ideas among populist leaders worldwide. This interconnectedness has enabled the rapid dissemination of populist rhetoric and strategies, strengthening the global populist movement. Parallel populist victories in Europe and the rise of MAGA in the United States underscore the growing international reach and influence of these movements.
Modern populism also facilitates and normalizes the presence of far-right radical groups. In the United States, MAGA exhibits subtle overlaps with Third Position politics in its emphasis on "America First" nationalism and critiques of globalism. Trump's appeal to the working class, paired with his anti-elite and protectionist economic rhetoric, reflects a syncretic approach. Like the Third Position's rejection of both capitalist elites and socialist internationalism, MAGA positions itself as a champion of the "forgotten" American worker while opposing progressive social movements.
This fusion of cultural conservatism and economic populism resonates with a wide range of disillusioned voters, blurring traditional ideological lines. While MAGA remains distinct from historical Third Position movements, its hybridization of nationalism, economic populism, and anti-elite rhetoric demonstrates how these ideologies evolve within contemporary populist frameworks.
The authoritarian undertones of populist movements are increasingly evident. Trump's actions on the first day of his second term, such as the swift pardoning of January 6 insurrectionists, including Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders, signal solidarity with violent actors. This move not only rehabilitates these groups but also reinforces their alignment with MAGA.
Globally, similar ties between populist movements and extremist groups are evident. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has connections with far-right groups like the Identitarian Movement and neo-Nazi networks, using nationalist rhetoric to intimidate opponents. Hungary's Fidesz party, under Viktor Orbán, benefits from the support of groups like the Hungarian Guard, known for targeting Roma communities and promoting anti-immigrant sentiment. Italy's Lega, led by Matteo Salvini, is linked to far-right factions such as CasaPound, which employ neo-fascist rhetoric and violence to advance nationalist themes.
Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro has relied on paramilitary militias to target leftist politicians and activists, while India's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under Narendra Modi, maintains close ties with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary group accused of inciting violence against minorities. These movements use nationalist and anti-globalist rhetoric to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and perpetuate divisions.
The global populist movement is further bolstered by influential figures like Elon Musk, who recently expressed support for the AfD via X. Musk's involvement in Trump's administration underscores the deepening connections between global populist leaders.
Modern populism has created a volatile political landscape, not only undermining liberal democratic norms but also fostering syncretic alliances that blur traditional ideological boundaries. These movements often build connections with extremist groups, activist organizations, and unconventional political networks, drawing strength from shared grievances and interconnected strategies. This convergence amplifies their influence and extends their reach beyond government institutions into civil society. Addressing the global nature of populism, and its ability to co-opt diverse political and activist frameworks, is essential to countering its divisive and authoritarian tendencies while safeguarding democratic principles and inclusive social movements.
MAGA is not a uniquely American movement but part of a global populist strategy that exploits cultural anxieties, nationalism, and anti-globalist rhetoric to consolidate power. By understanding its connections to international populism, it becomes clear that MAGA is a calculated political construct rather than a genuine grassroots movement. Recognizing these global parallels and shared tactics is essential to countering its corrosive impact on democracy and fostering a more inclusive political dialogue. Exposing MAGA as part of a broader authoritarian trend is not just a defense of American values but a necessary step in protecting democracy worldwide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's New War on Press Freedoms Has Already Begun
Once again, the far-right Republican president will have all the levers of the state on his side as he continues his crusade against journalism that dares hold him to account.
Nov 16, 2024
“Revenge—it’s a big part of Trump’s life,” Mother Jones‘ David Corn (10/19/16) wrote just before Trump was elected to the presidency the first time:
In speeches and public talks, Trump has repeatedly expressed his fondness for retribution. In 2011, he addressed the National Achievers Congress in Sydney, Australia, to explain how he had achieved his success. He noted there were a couple of lessons not taught in business school that successful people must know. At the top of the list was this piece of advice: “Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it.”
Knowing this about Trump, Democrats and liberals worry that he will use the Department of Justice, especially if Matt Gaetz is confirmed as attorney general, as an unrestrained vehicle to pursue the prosecution of political enemies.
But given Trump’s constant attacks on media—“the opposition party,” as his ally Steve Bannon called the fourth estate (New York Times, 1/26/17)—journalists fear that he will use the power of the state to intimidate if not destroy the press.
Defunding public broadcasting
Trump called for defunding NPR (Newsweek, 4/10/24) after a long-time editor accused the radio outlet of liberal bias in the conservative journal Free Press (4/9/24). Rep. Claudia Tenney (R–NY) introduced legislation to defund NPR because “taxpayers should not be forced to fund NPR, which has become a partisan propaganda machine” (Office of Claudia Tenney, 4/19/24). With Republicans also holding both houses of congress, bills like Tenney’s become more viable. Trump has previously supported budget proposals that eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (Politico, 3/27/19).
The infamous Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda many see as a blueprint for the second Trump term, calls for the end to public broadcasting, because it is viewed as liberal propaganda:
Every Republican president since Richard Nixon has tried to strip the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) of taxpayer funding. That is significant not just because it means that for half a century, Republican presidents have failed to accomplish what they set out to do, but also because Nixon was the first president in office when National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which the CPB funds, went on air.
In other words, all Republican presidents have recognized that public funding of domestic broadcasts is a mistake. As a 35-year-old lawyer in the Nixon White House, one Antonin Scalia warned that conservatives were being “confronted with a long-range problem of significant social consequences—that is, the development of a government-funded broadcast system similar to the BBC.”
All of which means that the next conservative president must finally get this done, and do it despite opposition from congressional members of his own party if necessary. To stop public funding is good policy and good politics. The reason is simple: President Lyndon Johnson may have pledged in 1967 that public broadcasting would become “a vital public resource to enrich our homes, educate our families and to provide assistance to our classrooms,” but public broadcasting immediately became a liberal forum for public affairs and journalism.
PBS and NPR, as FAIR (10/24/24) has noted, has for decades caved in to right-wing pressures—PBS by adding conservative programming, NPR by trying to rid itself of political commentary altogether. But the right will never let go of its ideological opposition to media outlets not directly owned by the corporate class.
‘Whether criminally or civilly’
Trump also has a well known track record of revoking the credentials of journalists who produce reporting he doesn’t like (Washington Post, 2/24/17, 5/8/19; New Republic, 11/5/24). It is realistic to assume that a lot more reporters will be barred from White House events in the years ahead.
While a bill that would grant the secretary of the treasury broad authority to revoke nonprofit status to any organization the office deems as a “terrorist” organization has so far failed (Al Jazeera, 11/12/24), it is quite possible that it could come up for a vote again. If this bill were to become law, the Treasury Department could use this ax against a great many progressive nonprofit outlets, like Democracy Now! and the American Prospect, as well as investigative outlets like ProPublica and the Center for Investigative Reporting.
The department could even target the Committee to Protect Journalists, which has already said in response to Trump’s victory, “The fundamental right to a free press, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, must not be impaired” (11/6/24).
Margaret Sullivan (Guardian, 10/27/24), an avid media observer, said there is no reason to think Trump will soften his campaign against the free press. She said:
In 2022, he sued the Pulitzer Prize board after they defended their awards to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Both newspapers had won Pulitzer Prizes for investigating Trump’s ties to Russia.
More recently, Trump sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation over the way the anchor characterized the verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s sexual misconduct case against him. Each of those cases is wending its way through the courts.
She added:
There is nothing to suggest that Trump would soften his approach in a second term. If anything, we can expect even more aggression.
Consider what one of Trump’s most loyal lieutenants, Kash Patel, has said.
“We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Patel threatened during a podcast with Steve Bannon. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”
Trump has already gone after the New York Times and Penguin Random House since Sullivan wrote this. CJR (11/14/24) said:
The letter, addressed to lawyers at the New York Times and Penguin Random House, arrived a week before the election. Attached was a discursive ten-page legal threat from an attorney for Donald Trump that demanded $10 billion in damages over “false and defamatory statements” contained in articles by Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner.
It singles out two stories coauthored by Buettner and Craig that related to their book on Trump and his financial dealings, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, released on September 17. It also highlighted an October 20 story headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” by Baker and an October 22 piece by Schmidt, “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”
And just before his victory, Trump sued CBS News, alleging the network’s “deceitful” editing of a recent 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris “misled the public and unfairly disadvantaged him” (CBS News, 10/31/24).
Expect more of this, except this time, Trump will have all the levers of the state on his side. And whatever moves the next Trump administration makes to attack the press will surely have a chilling effect, which will only empower his anti-democratic political agenda.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular