SAVE Act Advances

Democracy Docket

The GOP bill, a direct product of President Donald Trump’s decade-long obsession with illegal voting, would require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, bar states from counting late-arriving mail ballots, and dramatically infringe on states’ authority to run elections.

The SAVE Act still faces a steep uphill climb to overcome a likely Democratic filibuster in the Senate. But with the GOP controlling Congress and the White House, tightening voting rules near the top of Trump’s agenda, and the party largely unified around the issue, the prospect of major voter suppression legislation becoming law nationwide is much closer to reality than probably ever before. 

Voting-rights advocates and Democratic officials have already made clear the massive threat the SAVE Act poses to access to the ballot in the here and now, warning that it could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. But in interviews with Democracy Docket, historians and voting experts sought to put the SAVE Act in historical context — and could point to no close parallels.

Let’s be clear - it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote. This is just a way to make it harder for citizens to vote.

IEEPA in 2025: Tariff Tool or Abuse of Power?

In the first two posts, we explored how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was created in 1977 to limit unchecked presidential power — and how it became a go-to tool for freezing assets, punishing rogue regimes, and blocking terrorist funds.

Now we’re in 2025, and President Trump is using IEEPA in a way no president ever has before.

Not for sanctions.

Not to stop terrorism.

Not for national security in the traditional sense.

He’s using IEEPA to impose global tariffs.

Let’s break down what’s happening — and why it matters.

What Just Happened?

In April 2025, President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency over America’s trade deficits— especially with countries like China, Vietnam, and Japan.

Using IEEPA, he announced two things:

1. A 10% tariff on all imports from every country.

2. Higher tariffs (up to 54%) on countries with the biggest trade surpluses or trade barriers.

These new tariffs went into effect within days.

IEEPA had officially entered the world of global trade wars.

Wait — IEEPA Was Meant for Emergencies, Right?

Exactly.

IEEPA was passed to deal with “unusual and extraordinary threats” that come from outside the United States — threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy.

It’s been used for things like:

• Hostage crises

• Terror attacks

• Cyberwarfare

• Nuclear proliferation

Trade deficits — while a serious policy issue — don’t exactly fit the same category.

That’s why this move is raising alarms.

The Legal Pushback

Almost immediately, a lawsuit was filed to challenge Trump’s tariffs.

The argument?

IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to set tariffs, which is normally Congress’s job.

Legal experts say this use of IEEPA stretches the law far beyond what it was intended to do — and could set a dangerous precedent.

If the president can use IEEPA to tax imports during a trade dispute, what’s stopping future presidents from using it to control prices, regulate entire industries, or bypass Congress completely?

Supporters Say: It’s About Economic Survival

Trump and his allies argue that massive trade imbalances and foreign trade barriers are a serious threat to America’s economy — and therefore qualify as a national emergency.

They say IEEPA gives the president the flexibility to act fast, especially when other countries are “cheating” or undercutting American businesses.

To Trump, this is about restoring “economic justice” — and showing the world that America won’t be pushed around.

Critics Say: This Isn’t What IEEPA Was For

Opponents — including legal scholars, economists, and even some business groups — say this is a misuse of emergency powers.

Their main concerns:

• IEEPA isn’t a trade law — it was never meant to be used for tariffs.

• Congress should decide tax and trade policy, not the president alone.

• This could open the door to even more abuses of emergency powers in the future.

Some are calling it a “power grab in plain sight.”

Why It Matters

This isn’t just a debate about trade.

It’s a question about how far a president can go using emergency powers — and what counts as a national emergency in the first place.

If this use of IEEPA is allowed to stand, future presidents (from either party) might feel empowered to:

• Bypass Congress on major economic policy

• Declare vague or political issues as “emergencies”

• Use emergency laws to reshape the economy by executive order

That’s a big deal.

What Happens Next?

The legal case is moving through the courts — and it could end up at the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the tariffs are already affecting prices, businesses, and global supply chains.

Other countries are preparing to retaliate with their own tariffs, potentially escalating a full-blown trade war.

The stakes are high — not just for the economy, but for democracy itself.

Final Thoughts: IEEPA’s Future

IEEPA was meant to give presidents tools to protect the country — not tools to bypass Congress.

Over time, those boundaries have blurred. Now, in 2025, they’re being tested like never before.

So the big question is:

When everything is an emergency… what powers does a president not have?

Thanks for reading this series.

If this raised questions or gave you a new perspective, reach out on BlueSky.

Let’s keep the conversation going — about power, policy, and how we protect both security and democracy.

From Tehran to TikTok: How Presidents Have Used IEEPA to Shape the World

In the last post, we looked at how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was created in 1977 to give presidents limited powers to deal with real foreign threats — not to wage economic war whenever they felt like it.

So how has that worked out?

Well… over the past 40+ years, presidents have used IEEPA a lot — often for good reasons, sometimes in surprising ways, and occasionally in ways that stretch the law’s original intent.

Let’s walk through the major moments that shaped how IEEPA is used today.

1979: Hostages in Iran — IEEPA’s First Test

The first use of IEEPA came fast. In 1979, militants in Iran stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. President Jimmy Carter needed a fast, peaceful way to pressure Iran.

He turned to IEEPA.

Carter used it to freeze all Iranian government assets in the U.S. — over $12 billion. It was the first economic punch thrown with IEEPA, and it worked: the asset freeze helped bring Iran to the negotiating table.

Believe it or not, that national emergency is still in effect today, over 40 years later.

The 1980s: Cold War Conflicts and Sanctions

Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush used IEEPA in Cold War hotspots:

• Libya (1986): After a terror attack in Berlin, Reagan froze Libyan assets and banned trade.

• Nicaragua (1985): Sanctions were placed on the Sandinista government to weaken their grip on power.

• Iraq (1990): When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, President Bush used IEEPA to freeze Iraqi assets and ban trade.

IEEPA had become the go-to tool for punishing hostile regimes — without sending in troops.

The 1990s: New Targets — Terrorists and Drug Lords

President Bill Clinton took things a step further.

He used IEEPA not just against countries, but against individuals and non-government groups:

• 1995: Sanctions on Hamas and Hezbollah for terrorism.

• 1998: Sanctions on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

• 1995–1999: IEEPA used to freeze the assets of Colombian drug cartels.

This was a turning point: now, presidents could target people—not just governments.

Post-9/11: The War on Terror Supercharges IEEPA

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush used IEEPA to go after terrorist financing networks worldwide.

Within days, he signed Executive Order 13224, freezing the assets of anyone linked to terrorism.

Congress also gave him more power by allowing the government to not just freeze, but confiscate assets of anyone involved in an attack on the U.S.

IEEPA was now a front-line weapon in the Global War on Terror.

2010s: Cyber Threats, Human Rights, and Russia

President Obama expanded IEEPA’s use to:

• Human rights abusers (through the Magnitsky Act)

• Cybercriminals and hackers (like North Korean and Chinese cyber ops)

• Russia (after the 2014 invasion of Crimea)

These sanctions froze assets, banned travel, and cut off financial access. They were powerful — and coordinated with U.S. allies.

Trump’s First Term: New Uses, Big Controversies

President Trump used IEEPA aggressively — and sometimes in legally questionable ways.

• Venezuela: He imposed broad sanctions on Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

• China: He targeted Huawei and tried to ban TikTok and WeChat, citing national security.

• ICC (International Criminal Court): In 2020, Trump used IEEPA to sanction officials at the ICC — the first time U.S. sanctions were used against an international court.

Some of these moves were blocked in court. Judges said banning TikTok might violate IEEPA’s free speech protections, which prevent the government from restricting personal communications or information sharing.

Still, Trump pushed the boundaries of what IEEPA could be used for — and set the stage for even more controversial actions in his second term.

What We’ve Learned So Far

Since 1979, IEEPA has been used by every president to:

• Freeze assets

• Cut off trade

• Target terrorists, cyber criminals, and human rights violators

• Punish governments and individuals — sometimes in creative ways

It’s become one of the most powerful tools in the president’s toolbox.

But with great power comes… well, you know the rest.

Next Time: How Trump Is Using IEEPA in 2025

In the final post in this series, we’ll look at how Trump is using IEEPA right now — not just for sanctions, but for something that’s never been done before:

Imposing global tariffs using emergency powers.

We’ll break down what it means, why it’s controversial, and how it could reshape U.S. economic policy.

What the National Emergencies Act Enables

Understanding the National Emergencies Act (NEA) and the Scope of Presidential Emergency Powers

The National Emergencies Act (NEA), passed in 1976, is a foundational law that governs how the President of the United States can declare and utilize emergency powers. While the NEA itself does not provide any specific powers, it creates the legal framework that allows the President to activate emergency authorities contained in more than 120 other laws.

What the NEA Does

• Requires the President to formally declare a national emergency to access certain statutory powers.

• Mandates that the President specify which emergency powers are being invoked.

• Requires publication of the emergency declaration in the Federal Register.

• Imposes a requirement that the emergency be renewed annually or it expires.

• Provides Congress with the theoretical ability to terminate the emergency.

In essence, the NEA is a procedural law that governs how emergency powers are triggered—not what those powers are.

Powers Unlocked by Declaring a National Emergency

Once a national emergency is declared, the President can access a wide array of contingent powers from other statutes. These include:

• Economic controls: Through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President can freeze assets, block financial transactions, and impose sanctions on foreign entities.

• Military readiness: Call up reservists, redirect military construction funds, or control navigation in U.S. waters.

• Transportation and communication controls: Restrict movement or regulate electronic communications infrastructure.

• Property seizure: Prohibit or regulate property transactions involving foreign interests.

The specific powers vary depending on which laws are cited in the emergency declaration.

How the NEA Relates to IEEPA

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one of the most frequently invoked laws under the NEA. Passed in 1977, IEEPA allows the President to take sweeping economic actions to respond to any unusual and extraordinary foreign threat.

However, IEEPA can only be used after a national emergency is declared under the NEA and must pertain to a foreign threat. It has been used in a variety of contexts—from targeting terrorist financing after 9/11 to sanctioning foreign governments.

In practice, this means the NEA is the gateway law that makes IEEPA usable.

The Insurrection Act and the NEA

The Insurrection Act is often mentioned in the same breath as emergency powers, but it operates independently of the NEA. The President does not need to declare a national emergency to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the use of military force within the U.S. to suppress civil unrest, rebellion, or insurrection.

While not legally tied to the NEA, a President could theoretically use both laws in tandem—one to justify economic control and the other to authorize domestic military deployment.

Can Congress Revoke a National Emergency?

Yes—but it’s harder than it sounds.

The NEA originally allowed Congress to end an emergency by a simple majority vote in both chambers. However, the Supreme Court’s 1983 ruling in INS v. Chadha struck down the legislative veto, requiring that any termination resolution must pass both the House and Senate and be signed by the President—or override a presidential veto.

In practical terms, this means:

• Congress can pass a joint resolution to terminate a national emergency.

• The President can veto this resolution.

• Congress must then override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Given modern political polarization, this makes it extremely difficult for Congress to unilaterally end a national emergency without bipartisan consensus.

When the Guardrails Don’t Hold

The National Emergencies Act provides a critical legal structure for the exercise of emergency powers by the executive branch, but it also highlights the limits of congressional oversight in practice. While designed to impose transparency and checks on presidential authority, the NEA has evolved into a tool that grants significant flexibility to the President—especially when combined with laws like IEEPA. Understanding this framework is essential in evaluating how emergency powers are used—or potentially abused—in times of crisis.

What Is IEEPA? The 1977 Law Behind U.S. Sanctions

IEEPA: Born from Crisis — Why the U.S. Needed a New Emergency Law in 1977

Ever wonder how U.S. presidents can suddenly freeze a foreign country’s bank accounts, ban certain imports, or slap sanctions on international criminals — all without waiting for Congress? That’s thanks to a law most Americans have never heard of: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Today, it’s the backbone of U.S. sanctions. But when it was passed in 1977, it was actually meant to rein in presidential power — not expand it.

Let’s go back to where it all started.

The Problem: Presidents Had Too Much Power

For decades, U.S. presidents had been using a World War I-era law called the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) to deal with all sorts of situations — even ones that had nothing to do with war or enemies.

Here’s the wild part:

From 1933 to 1976, the U.S. was technically under a continuous national emergency. That meant the president could control international trade, freeze assets, and block financial transactions — with almost no checks from Congress.

At one point, President Nixon even used this power during a postal workers’ strike. That had nothing to do with foreign threats — and people in both parties started asking:

“Is this really how we want emergency powers to work?”

Congress Steps In: The National Emergencies Act

After years of concern about unchecked executive power — especially during the Vietnam War and Watergate — Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA) in 1976.

The NEA required:

• Presidents to formally declare emergencies

• Emergencies to be reviewed annually

• Reports to Congress so lawmakers could keep tabs

It was a big step toward restoring the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.

Then Came IEEPA

But Congress still needed a law to let the president respond quickly to real foreign threats — just without the loopholes and lack of oversight that came with TWEA.

So, in 1977, Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

IEEPA was supposed to be:

• A narrower, more focused tool

• Only usable in true national emergencies

• Limited to threats that come from outside the U.S.

• Bound by rules that protect free speech and personal communication

In short, it was meant to give the president power with limits.

The Big Idea: National Security, Not Political Power

Congress didn’t want presidents using emergency powers for everyday policy fights or domestic issues.

IEEPA was supposed to be reserved for “unusual and extraordinary threats” — things like terrorism, foreign wars, cyberattacks, or weapons trafficking.

It was about protecting the country, not helping presidents win trade disputes or punish political opponents.

But as we’ll see in the next post, that original intention hasn’t always held up.

Up Next: How Presidents Have Actually Used IEEPA

From the Iran hostage crisis to sanctions on TikTok, IEEPA has been used to freeze billions in assets, isolate hostile regimes, and go after terrorists, hackers, and even app developers.

In the next couple of posts, we’ll show how the National Emergencies Act (NEA) interacts with IEEPA, and we’ll explore how IEEPA evolved from a little-known reform law into one of the most powerful tools in the presidential toolbox.

Echoes of Tyranny: Then and Now

In 1776, the American colonies declared independence from King George III, accusing him of abusing power and ignoring their rights. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t just a breakup letter—it was a list of grievances, a warning about what happens when a leader puts himself above the law, silences critics, and treats democracy like a game.

Nearly 250 years later, many of those same complaints feel eerily familiar.

This post doesn’t name names, but it does invite you to think deeply. What happens when leaders today echo the very behaviors our country was founded to resist?

Let’s look at some of those original complaints and how similar issues have surfaced in recent years.

Blocking Good Laws

Then: “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

Now: Some leaders have ignored or tried to overturn laws meant to protect the environment, health care, or civil rights—laws passed by Congress and supported by the public.

Undermining Justice

Then: “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice…”

Now: Attempts to stop investigations, fire prosecutors, or publicly attack judges have raised real questions about respect for the rule of law.

Controlling the Courts

Then: “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone…”

Now: When leaders pressure judges, question their legitimacy, or appoint loyalists over qualified professionals, the courts can’t do their job fairly.

Using the Military Against the People

Then: “He has rendered the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

Now: Threatening to use the military against peaceful protesters or to hold on to power undermines the idea that the military serves the people—not the president.

Undermining the Constitution

Then: “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution…”

Now: Cozying up to authoritarian leaders or bending constitutional norms for personal gain is the opposite of what democracy stands for.

Disrupting Trade

Then: “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world…”

Now: Trade wars, tariff chaos, and sudden policy changes have hurt farmers, small businesses, and international partnerships.

Denying Fair Trials

Then: “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury…”

Now: From immigration detention without due process to talk of targeting political opponents, justice systems have been threatened or ignored.

Fueling Violence at Home

Then: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us…”

Now: When leaders spread lies, encourage mob behavior, or stay silent in the face of violence, they don’t just stoke division—they put the country at risk.

Why It Matters

These comparisons aren’t about left or right. They’re about democracy—or the loss of it. The Founders weren’t perfect, but they gave us a warning: watch for the signs of tyranny, even if it comes wrapped in a flag or holding a Bible.

History doesn’t repeat, but it often rhymes. When the same kinds of abuses show up in new clothes, it’s up to us to recognize them—and speak out.

Read: The Declaration of Independence

From Workers’ Rights to Corporate Power: The Fallout of Janus v. AFSCME

In 2018, the Supreme Court made a big decision that most people have never heard of—but it’s been quietly changing the country ever since.

The case was called Janus v. AFSCME, and it had to do with unions for government workers—like teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees. Before the decision, even if you didn’t want to join your workplace’s union, you still had to pay a small fee to help cover the cost of negotiations and protections the union fought for. After all, you still got the benefits.

But the Court ruled 5–4 that this fee violated free speech rights. In short, they said no one should be forced to pay money to an organization they don’t agree with. That might sound fair on the surface—but it had serious ripple effects.

A Blow to Workers’ Rights

This ruling made the entire public sector “right-to-work,” meaning no government employee can be required to support a union in any way—not even through small fees.

What happened next? Thousands of public workers stopped paying. That meant unions suddenly had less money—less money to support members, less money to negotiate for better pay or working conditions, and less money to push for laws that protect workers.

Unions are one of the few tools working people have to push back against powerful employers. Without them, workers are often left to fight for fair treatment alone.

Who Benefits? (Hint: Not You)

Let’s be honest—this decision wasn’t really about protecting free speech. It was about weakening unions.

Big corporations and wealthy donors have been trying to break unions for decades. Why? Because unions give regular people a voice at the table. And when unions are strong, workers win better wages, safer workplaces, and more say in decisions that affect their lives.

The Janus decision tilted the scales even more in favor of corporate power and public officials who want fewer checks on their authority. It made it easier for companies and politicians to ignore workers—and harder for working people to stand together and demand better.

Harming Civil Rights in Disguise

Public-sector unions have also played a big role in advancing civil rights. They’ve helped protect workers of color, advocate for women in the workplace, and push back against discrimination. When unions lose power, these fights get harder.

So while Janus may have sounded like a technical court case about fees, its impact goes much deeper. It weakens the groups that fight for fairness—not just in the workplace, but across society.

Tilting Elections, Fueling Division

There’s another layer to this: politics.

Public unions tend to support candidates who fight for working people—often Democrats. So when those unions lose money and members, they also lose political influence. Meanwhile, corporate interests (which usually back Republicans) grow stronger.

This shifts the playing field even more, giving big money more control over our elections. It’s one reason politics in America feels so skewed—and so divisive. When one side is funded by billionaires and the other is defunded by court rulings, the playing field isn’t just uneven. It’s broken.

Why It Matters Now

Janus v. AFSCME didn’t just change a law—it changed the balance of power in America.

It weakened workers, strengthened corporations, hurt civil rights, and made our political divisions worse. And it’s still affecting millions of people today.

If we want a country where working people have a voice, where elections are fair, and where civil rights matter, we need to understand what happened—and what we can do to fix it.

Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act Explained

In March 2025, something shocking happened in U.S. immigration policy. The Trump administration revived a centuries-old law—the Alien Enemies Act—to justify the mass deportation of hundreds of young Venezuelan men, many of them asylum seekers. This law, originally created in 1798 for wartime emergencies, had not been used in over 70 years. Its sudden return raised serious legal, moral, and human rights concerns—and has sparked a fierce court battle that’s still playing out.

Here’s what happened, and why it matters.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act (AEA) was written during the presidency of John Adams in 1798. It gives the U.S. President the power to arrest or deport citizens of enemy countries during wartime. It’s only been used a few times in American history—during declared wars like World War I and World War II.

But in 2025, the Trump administration decided to use it… even though the U.S. isn’t at war.

Target: Venezuelan Migrants

By 2025, many Venezuelans were fleeing political and economic crisis under the Maduro regime. Some crossed the U.S. border seeking asylum. Among them were young men that U.S. officials suspected might have ties to Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan gang.

Instead of handling this through regular immigration channels, President Trump—reportedly with advice from longtime aide Stephen Miller—signed a secret order using the Alien Enemies Act to declare these men “enemy aliens.” He claimed they were part of a foreign “invasion” backed by Venezuela’s government, even though no war had been declared.

That decision let the administration bypass normal legal procedures and deport people without giving them a hearing.

A Secret Operation to El Salvador

On March 15, 2025, ICE agents began rounding up hundreds of Venezuelan men held in immigration detention. Many had no criminal record in the U.S.—some were just teenagers who’d recently crossed the border.

Then, in a move kept secret from even some members of the government, the administration put around 250 men on planes and flew them not to Venezuela—but to El Salvador.

Why El Salvador? Because Trump made a deal with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. In exchange for $6 million, Bukele agreed to hold the deported Venezuelans in CECOT, a mega-prison notorious for its harsh conditions. This facility is infamous for overcrowding, torture, and lack of basic rights.

The move stunned immigration advocates and sparked a flurry of legal action.

The Courts Step In—Too Late for Some

As news of the deportation flights leaked, lawyers rushed to stop them. A federal judge issued an emergency order to halt the deportations and demanded that any planes still in the air return.

But by then, the flights were over international waters—and the Trump administration refused to bring them back. Officials claimed the court had no authority once the planes left U.S. airspace.

The deportees landed in El Salvador, were immediately shackled, stripped, and imprisoned. The images, posted online by Salvadoran officials, were shocking. Civil rights groups and media outlets condemned the spectacle as political theater.

A few days later, the courts officially blocked any further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, at least for now. Judges questioned the entire legal basis for the move, with one even saying that “Nazis got better treatment” than these men.

Why This Is So Alarming

This situation is more than just a fight over immigration policy. It’s a serious test of constitutional rights, presidential power, and basic human decency. Here’s why:

• No due process: These men were deported without a hearing. Some may not even be gang members. One example: a man was deported because officials misread his soccer tattoo as a gang symbol.

• No war: The U.S. isn’t at war with Venezuela. Using a wartime law in peacetime stretches legal boundaries in dangerous ways.

• Terrifying precedent: If the government can label a group as “enemy aliens” without a war and ship them off without trial, what’s to stop it from doing the same to others?

• Human rights concerns: The deportees were sent to a foreign prison known for abuse. That could violate international laws against torture and arbitrary detention.

What Happens Now?

The courts have blocked further deportations under the AEA, but 238 Venezuelan men remain locked up in El Salvador. Their lawyers are trying to bring them back. The Trump administration is looking for ways to keep them out.

This case could end up in the Supreme Court—and it could reshape how much power a U.S. President has in the name of national security.

Why We Should All Be Paying Attention

History has taught us what happens when fear and power override justice. From Japanese internment in WWII to Guantánamo Bay after 9/11, the U.S. has made grave mistakes when due process is pushed aside.

Using the Alien Enemies Act to bypass the Constitution in 2025 is another step down that path. Whether you support or oppose Trump’s immigration policies, this case raises a simple but vital question:

Should any president be able to declare a group of people “enemies” and deport them without a trial—especially when there’s no war?

That’s the battle playing out in the courts now. And the outcome could change the meaning of justice in America for years to come.

An Exercise in Power

Chris Murphy

the tariffs are a tool to collapse our democracy. A means to compel loyalty from every business that will need to petition Trump for relief.

This is a pretty dark take on the plan, but even if it is not intentional, it is just as dangerous.

Trump’s Tariffs Are a Disaster—And Congress Needs to Step In

What are tariffs, anyway?

Tariffs are taxes on goods coming into the country. If the U.S. puts a tariff on foreign-made cars, for example, that car becomes more expensive. The idea is to protect American-made products by making imports pricier. But in practice, it’s American consumers and businesses who often end up paying the price—literally.

Tariffs can sometimes help specific industries, but they usually lead to higher prices for everyone else. They can also spark trade wars, where other countries slap their own tariffs on U.S. goods, hurting our exports and the jobs that depend on them.

Trump’s 2025 tariffs: not just bad, but bizarre

President Trump recently launched a sweeping set of new tariffs under something he calls the “Reciprocal Trade Act.” Sounds fair, right? If other countries tax us, we tax them. The problem? The data used to justify the tariffs is wildly inaccurate. Instead of using actual tariff rates, Trump’s team used a made-up formula that treats trade deficits like tariffs. That’s not how trade works—at all.

The result? Tariffs on nearly everything from nearly everywhere, often with no logic. Some of the strangest examples include tariffs on goods from uninhabited islands and even on a U.S. military base overseas. It’s like declaring a trade war on penguins and our own troops.

Why it matters

These tariffs are a blunt instrument. They don’t target bad actors or fix specific problems—they just make imports more expensive across the board. That means higher costs for businesses, fewer choices for consumers, and potential retaliation from trading partners. In short: economic pain, with no clear gain.

Even worse, these sweeping tariffs were imposed by the president alone, under emergency powers. But there is no real emergency—just bad economics. Which brings us to the bigger problem…

Congress needs to take back control

Under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to have the power to set tariffs. Over the years, though, it has handed much of that authority to the executive branch. Now we’re seeing the consequences: one person can impose chaotic, damaging trade policies with no oversight.

It’s time for Congress to reclaim that responsibility. Tariffs shouldn’t be used as political stunts or based on fake math. They should be carefully debated, data-driven, and focused on protecting the broader economy—not just scoring points.

The economy is too important to be run on gut instinct and Google spreadsheets. Congress needs to act before we do more damage—not just to our economy, but to the idea of checks and balances itself.

Why Would a President Crash the Economy on Purpose?

…and What History Teaches Us About It

Imagine this: a president returns to power, full of fiery speeches about putting America first. Within weeks, they launch a trade war—not with enemies, but with longtime allies. The stock market tanks. Prices spike. Jobs are threatened. People start to panic.

And we all ask: Why would a president do this—on purpose?

As wild as it sounds, this kind of thing has happened before. Sometimes, economic chaos isn’t an accident. Sometimes, it’s a strategy. Let’s break down the reasons a leader might want to shake up the economy—and look at some historical examples that prove it’s not just a conspiracy theory.

It Looks Good to Their Base

Trade wars and tough economic moves can be framed as strength. A leader might say they’re protecting workers, bringing back jobs, or punishing countries that “took advantage” of us. It sounds patriotic. Tough. Decisive.

Example: Herbert Hoover & the Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930)

During the Great Depression, Hoover raised tariffs on foreign goods to “protect American jobs.” It sounded good. But other countries hit back with their own tariffs. Global trade collapsed. The Depression got worse.

Example: Donald Trump & the U.S.-China Trade War (2018–2020)

Trump slapped massive tariffs on Chinese goods, claiming it would bring manufacturing back. Instead, American farmers and businesses took the hit. The government had to bail them out. But the trade war played well politically—it looked like he was “standing up to China.”

Chaos Creates Opportunity

Crashing the economy might give a leader more control. In times of crisis, people are more likely to accept extreme policies or give up freedoms. Fear is powerful.

Example: Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (2000s)

Chávez wrecked Venezuela’s economy with nationalizations and price controls—but he used the crisis to tighten his grip. He blamed outsiders, punished critics, and kept his supporters close with handouts… until everything fell apart.

Example: Vladimir Putin in Russia (2022–present)

Putin invaded Ukraine knowing full well Western sanctions would hurt Russia’s economy. But he weaponized the crisis. He restricted exports, blamed the West for hardship, and used it to justify repression at home.

They Want to Punish Opponents

Sometimes the goal isn’t economic success—it’s revenge. A president might target allies who criticized them, or international institutions they see as threats. Tariffs and trade restrictions become political weapons.

Example: Donald Trump & European Allies

Trump threatened tariffs on European cars and clashed with NATO partners. It wasn’t just about trade—it was about loyalty. Friends who didn’t show support were treated like enemies.

They Actually Believe It Will Work

Not every act of sabotage is intentional. Some leaders surround themselves with loyalists, ignore experts, and act on gut instinct—no matter the cost.

Example: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey (2010s–2020s)

Erdoğan insisted on keeping interest rates low, even as inflation exploded. Economists warned him. He didn’t care. His economic beliefs were treated like gospel—and Turkey’s currency collapsed.

Example: Hoover, Again

Despite pleas from hundreds of economists, Hoover believed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff would save American jobs. He was wrong—but refused to back down.

It’s a Distraction

A sudden economic crisis can shift the public’s attention. If a leader is facing legal trouble, corruption scandals, or growing opposition, crashing the economy can become a giant smoke bomb.

Example: Chávez & Inflation

As inflation spun out of control, Chávez focused attention on “economic war” with the U.S. and rich Venezuelans. He used the chaos to distract from corruption and mismanagement.

Modern-Day Parallels

Imagine a leader using trade fights and crashing markets to dominate headlines. Suddenly, we’re not talking about investigations or indictments—we’re talking about survival.

The Bottom Line

Crashing the economy might seem like political suicide—but sometimes, it’s a calculated risk. Whether it’s about consolidating power, punishing enemies, or rallying supporters, history shows that economic chaos can be a tool—not just a tragedy.

When we see a president sparking a trade war or tanking the markets, we shouldn’t just ask “what’s happening?”

We should be asking: “who benefits?”

Because the pain might not be accidental—it might be part of the plan.

What to Watch For

So how can we tell if economic chaos is just bad luck… or something more intentional? Here are a few red flags to keep an eye on:

Blame Games

When a leader blames foreign countries, the media, or “globalists” for economic problems they helped cause, it’s often a sign they’re trying to shift attention—and avoid accountability.

Ignoring Experts

If trusted economists, financial advisors, and central banks are sounding the alarm—but the president brushes them off or fires them—that’s a sign of ideology trumping reality.

Attacks on Allies

Watch for sudden trade fights or sanctions against long-standing allies. It might not be about policy—it could be personal, political, or part of a larger power play.

Crises That Conveniently Distract

Economic disruption that suddenly replaces coverage of investigations, scandals, or unpopular decisions is no coincidence. Ask yourself: What just got pushed off the front page?

Insider Profits

If people close to the president seem to profit from the chaos—whether through stock moves, government contracts, or shady business deals—that’s a major red flag.

Power Grabs During Panic

Pay attention when leaders ask for emergency powers, delay elections, or bypass normal checks and balances in the middle of an economic crisis. Chaos is often used as a cover for authoritarian shifts.

Stay Informed. Stay Sharp.

The economy is complicated—but the motives behind crashing it don’t have to be. History shows us that when power is on the line, some leaders are willing to burn the system down if it helps them stay in control.

So don’t just watch what they’re doing. Watch why. And ask yourself: Who gets hurt? Who gets richer? And who ends up with more power?

Hands Off!

NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION
SATURDAY, APRIL 5

Donald Trump and Elon Musk think this country belongs to them. They're taking everything they can get their hands on, and daring the world to stop them. On Saturday, April 5th, we're taking to the streets nationwide to fight back with a clear message: Hands off!

Trump’s Tariff Math May Come from Chatbots

Ars Technica

On social media, rumors swirled that the Trump administration got these supposedly fake numbers from chatbots. On Bluesky, tech entrepreneur Amy Hoy joined others posting screenshots from ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok, each showing that the chatbots arrived at similar calculations as the Trump administration.

This tracks.

Alien Enemies Act: A Dark Chapter in U.S. History

Imagine being arrested, locked away, or kicked out of the country—not because of anything you did, but because of where you were born. That’s exactly what happened to thousands of people in American history under a law that’s still on the books today: the Alien Enemies Act.

Passed in 1798, the law gives the U.S. government power to detain or deport people from countries we’re at war with—just because of their nationality. It’s rarely used, but when it is, the results have been dramatic and often deeply unjust. Let’s take a look at how this law played out during major wars in American history—and what it teaches us about power, fear, and fairness.

The First Test: War of 1812

The Alien Enemies Act got its first real test when the U.S. went to war with Britain in 1812. President James Madison declared British citizens in America to be “alien enemies.” Some were detained or forced to leave, but the action was limited. The government didn’t have a lot of resources, and the country wasn’t nearly as large or organized as it is now.

Even then, though, the basic ethical question was clear: Is it right to punish people not for what they’ve done, but for where they come from?

World War I: Fear Takes Over

Fast forward a hundred years to World War I. When the U.S. joined the war in 1917, President Wilson used the Alien Enemies Act to target immigrants from Germany and Austria-Hungary. Nearly half a million people were forced to register as “enemy aliens.” They had to carry special ID cards, follow curfews, and stay away from certain areas. Around 6,300 were arrested and locked up—most without any proof of wrongdoing.

This wasn’t about catching spies. While a few actual threats were found, most people caught up in this dragnet were just ordinary immigrants. The fear of the enemy—and a surge of anti-German hate—led to sweeping restrictions that upended lives and families.

World War II: Mass Internment on an Unprecedented Scale

Then came World War II—and the darkest chapter in the use of the Alien Enemies Act.

Right after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, President Roosevelt used the Act to label tens of thousands of Japanese, German, and Italian nationals as enemy aliens. They were banned from traveling freely, forced to register again, and had their assets frozen. Many were arrested—often based on rumors or stereotypes.

The numbers are staggering: about 31,000 people, mostly of Japanese and German descent, were interned in Department of Justice camps for years.

But it didn’t stop there.

Using a separate order (Executive Order 9066), the government also removed over 110,000 Japanese Americans—the majority of them U.S. citizens—from their homes and forced them into internment camps. The Alien Enemies Act didn’t directly apply to citizens, but it helped create the climate of fear that made this mass incarceration possible.

Legal but Unjust

At the time, all of this was legal. Courts mostly sided with the government. The Supreme Court even upheld the internment of Japanese Americans in the now-infamous Korematsu v. United States decision.

But being legal doesn’t make something right.

Decades later, the U.S. government admitted these actions were wrong. In 1988, Congress apologized and paid reparations to Japanese American survivors. And in 2010, the Department of Justice apologized for the treatment of Italian Americans. Still, the Alien Enemies Act was never repealed.

A Law with a Dangerous Legacy

What do we learn from all this?

That in times of war or crisis, fear can make us turn against our neighbors. The Alien Enemies Act gave presidents the power to round up immigrants based on nothing more than where they were born. And while it was used most aggressively during the world wars, the law still exists—and could be used again.

That’s why remembering this history matters. Because if we’re not careful, the next time fear rises, we might repeat the mistakes of the past.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act—and Why Does It Still Matter?

Most Americans have never heard of the Alien Enemies Act, even though it’s been quietly sitting in our laws since 1798. It sounds like something from a sci-fi movie, but it’s very real—and it gives the President the power to detain or deport people from “enemy” countries during wartime.

This law has only been used a few times in U.S. history, mainly during World Wars I and II. But recently, it’s made headlines again—this time not in a war against nations, but against gang violence. That sudden shift has raised serious legal and human rights questions.

So where did this law come from? What was it meant to do? And why is it still around more than 225 years later?

Let’s break it down.

A Law Born Out of Fear

Back in 1798, the U.S. was a brand-new country, barely two decades old and already feeling threatened. France, going through its own revolution, was fighting wars across Europe. U.S. leaders were afraid French spies or sympathizers might stir up trouble at home. To protect national security, Congress passed a group of laws called the Alien and Sedition Acts.

One of those was the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). It gave the President power to arrest, detain, or deport adult men (and later women) from enemy countries—but only during times of declared war or invasion.

The idea was simple: If the U.S. is at war, and there are people from that enemy country living here, the government should be able to act quickly if any of them pose a threat.

Not Just Another Law

Unlike the other Alien and Sedition Acts, which expired or were repealed soon after, the Alien Enemies Act never went away. It’s still part of U.S. law today. That’s because while the other laws mostly targeted political speech and immigration, the AEA was considered a wartime emergency measure.

Even President Thomas Jefferson—who opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts—let the AEA stay in place when he came into office. And in 1918, it was updated to include women, too.

From Dormant Law to Wartime Weapon

The Alien Enemies Act has only been used a few times, but when it has been invoked, it’s made a big impact:

• War of 1812: Used against British nationals.

• World War I: President Woodrow Wilson required German-born residents to register as enemy aliens. Thousands were detained.

• World War II: President Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the law’s use to Japanese, German, and Italian nationals. Many were sent to internment camps—part of a broader and painful chapter in U.S. history that included the forced relocation of Japanese Americans.

Each time, the law was used to respond to wartime fear, often casting a wide net over entire communities based on nationality—not necessarily based on individual guilt.

A New Kind of War?

Fast forward to 2025, and we see the AEA being used in a very different way.

Former President Donald Trump issued an executive order labeling certain Venezuelan migrants as “enemy aliens” under the AEA. His administration claimed they were part of a dangerous gang, Tren de Aragua, and used the Act to detain and deport hundreds—without the usual legal hearings that most immigrants would receive.

This marked the first time the law was used without a declared war. Instead of responding to a conflict between nations, it was applied in what some called a “war on gangs.” That move has sparked lawsuits and serious concern from legal experts and human rights groups.

Why It Matters Now

The Alien Enemies Act is a powerful tool that was designed for very specific situations—wartime, when fast action might be needed to stop a real threat. But when it’s used outside of that context, it raises big questions:

• Who gets to decide who is an “enemy”?

• What rights do immigrants have in times of fear or crisis?

• How do we balance national security with individual liberty?

This 18th-century law still has the power to change lives in the 21st century. That’s why understanding its history and purpose matters—because how we use it today says a lot about who we are as a country.

Teen Deported to El Salvador

Texas Monthly

Eighteen-year-old Carlos Daniel Terán was taken from his home and shipped to a notorious prison on the charge that he is a gang member. The government hasn't produced evidence supporting the claim, says his lawyer.

Using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport a teenager is more than just extreme — it’s completely out of line. This law was meant to be used during declared wars, to remove people from countries we were actually fighting. It suspends basic rights like due process. Using it now, in peacetime, against a young person with no proof of any crime, is not only unfair — it’s dangerous.

April is Testicular Cancer Awareness Month

While it might not be a comfortable topic, it's an important one!

Testicular cancer is the most common cancer in young men (ages 15-44) — but not limited to just young men. Trust me.

The good news?  It's highly treatable—especially when caught early. 

• 👀 Look for changes in size or shape 

• 👐 Gently feel for lumps or swelling 

• 🤔 Notice any pain or discomfort? 

If something seems, off, don't Google it—see a urologist. 

Testicular Cancer Awareness Foundation

How a 2017 Tax Law Helped Divide America Even More

In 2017, Republicans in Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—a huge tax overhaul that became one of President Trump’s biggest achievements. Supporters claimed it would help working Americans by giving businesses more money to invest in jobs and wages. But that’s not what really happened.

Who Actually Benefited?

The TCJA slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, and it also gave tax cuts to individuals—but most of the benefits went to the wealthy. Instead of raising wages or creating more jobs, many corporations used their tax savings to buy back their own stock (which boosts share prices) and give bonuses to CEOs. Regular workers? Not so much.

This move made the rich even richer. By 2021, the top 1% of Americans owned nearly one-third of all wealth in the country, while the bottom half owned just 2.6%. That’s a massive gap—and it’s growing.

Why This Matters for Civil Rights

When wealth is this unequal, it affects more than just bank accounts. Economic inequality often hits communities of color the hardest, making it harder for people to access housing, education, healthcare, and fair treatment. Civil rights aren’t just about laws—they’re about whether people have a fair shot at living with dignity. A tax law that concentrates wealth at the top only makes it harder for struggling communities to catch up.

Corporate Power and Political Influence

The TCJA also gave even more power to large corporations. With their tax windfalls, big companies not only rewarded their executives—they also spent more on lobbying and political donations. That means wealthy corporations can shape laws and policies in their favor, while everyday Americans have less of a voice.

And let’s not forget: the law added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. Now, some politicians are using that as an excuse to talk about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other programs that millions of Americans rely on.

Division and Distrust

The TCJA didn’t just shift money—it deepened the divide in our politics. Conservatives often point to the law as proof of economic “growth,” while progressives highlight how it made inequality worse. This fight over who the government should serve—everyday people or the wealthy and powerful—feeds the anger and distrust that are tearing America apart.

What We Can Learn

Tax laws might seem boring or complicated, but they shape our lives in real ways. The TCJA helped widen the gap between rich and poor, strengthened corporate influence, and hurt efforts to create a more fair and equal society. If we want to move toward unity, we need policies that lift up everyone—not just those at the top.

Charlottesville and Platforming White Nationalism

In August 2017, something happened that shocked the country: a group of white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and far-right extremists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, for a rally they called “Unite the Right.” They said they were protesting the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. But what the world saw was something much darker—marchers with torches chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans like “Jews will not replace us.”

Violence broke out. One of the white nationalists drove his car into a crowd of peaceful counter-protesters, killing a woman named Heather Heyer and injuring many others. The event was a clear and horrifying display of hate in the open. It reminded us that racism and extremism are still very much alive in this country.

A Divisive Response from the White House

Instead of bringing people together in the wake of the tragedy, President Trump made things worse. He said there was violence “on many sides” and that some of the marchers were “very fine people.” For many Americans, this wasn’t just a tone-deaf comment—it felt like he was defending racists. His words caused outrage and heartbreak for people who believe in equality and civil rights. But Trump’s supporters said the media twisted his words and claimed he was simply trying to be fair.

No matter which side you were on, one thing was clear: the country was more divided than ever.

Civil Rights Under Threat

The rise of white nationalism and the lukewarm response from national leaders have had real consequences for civil rights. Hate crimes have increased since 2017. Groups that used to be pushed to the fringes now feel emboldened. At the same time, laws meant to protect people from discrimination—like voting rights laws—have been weakened in many states. Communities of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable groups feel less safe and less supported.

When hate becomes normalized, civil rights take a hit.

Corporate Power and Hypocrisy

In the wake of Charlottesville, some big companies put out statements condemning hate. A few even cut ties with far-right groups. But here’s the thing: many of those same companies continue to fund politicians who support laws that make it harder for people to vote or protest.

This shows how corporate power can play both sides. On the surface, companies want to look like they stand for justice. Behind the scenes, they often support policies that deepen inequality. That’s not just hypocrisy—it’s part of the problem.

White Nationalism and the Ballot Box

Elections have also been affected. The same forces that showed up in Charlottesville have made their way into mainstream politics. Some candidates now openly use fear and division to win votes—talking about “invasions” at the border, spreading conspiracy theories, or promising to defend “traditional” values against so-called threats.

This kind of messaging is dangerous because it makes people feel like they have to pick sides based on race, religion, or culture. It turns neighbors into enemies. And it leads to voter suppression efforts that target Black and brown communities.

So Where Do We Go from Here?

Charlottesville was more than just a tragic moment—it was a warning sign. It showed us that ignoring hate doesn’t make it go away. It also reminded us that silence from leaders—or worse, encouragement—can make things worse.

If we want a more united America, we have to speak out against white nationalism and racism in all its forms. We have to protect civil rights, hold corporations accountable, and demand fair elections. That’s not about left vs. right—it’s about right vs. wrong.

We may not all agree on everything, but we should be able to agree on this: hate has no place in our democracy.

How the 2016 Trump Election Shaped a Divided America

The 2016 election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton wasn’t a normal campaign. It was full of anger, fear, and deep disagreement about what kind of country America should be. And the way it played out—and what followed—has had lasting effects on civil rights, corporate power, and how people feel about elections.

A Campaign That Made the Divide Worse

Trump ran as someone who would break the system and speak for people who felt ignored. Clinton ran as someone who knew how the system worked and wanted to improve it. Their campaigns couldn’t have been more different.

But instead of focusing on policy, the election became personal and hostile. Trump led crowds in chanting “Lock her up!” about Clinton. Russian groups spread lies on social media to stir up anger. The FBI reopened an email investigation just before the vote, creating more confusion. Meanwhile, Trump made many offensive comments about immigrants, women, and minorities.

These things made people more suspicious of each other and more distrustful of the political system. And when Trump won the Electoral College—but lost the popular vote by almost 3 million—it only made those feelings worse.

Civil Rights Were Weakened

After the election, millions of people protested. Many worried about what Trump’s presidency would mean for civil rights. During his time in office, those concerns grew.

The Trump administration rolled back protections for immigrants, LGBTQ+ Americans, and people of color. It took a more aggressive approach to immigration and ignored or downplayed issues of racism. It also placed judges in federal courts who were less likely to support civil rights laws.

For people who had been pushing for more equality, these changes felt like a step backward.

Big Business Got Bigger

Trump often talked about standing up for regular people. But many of the policies his administration pushed ended up helping corporations and wealthy donors.

He signed a tax bill that mostly benefited large businesses and the richest Americans. His administration cut back environmental rules, consumer protections, and other regulations meant to hold corporations accountable. He also brought in many officials who had close ties to the industries they were supposed to oversee.

As a result, big companies gained even more power during his presidency, while working people continued to struggle with wages, healthcare costs, and job security.

Elections Lost Trust

The 2016 election also raised big questions about how elections work—and whether they’re fair.

Even though Clinton won more votes nationwide, Trump became president because of the Electoral College. That made many people feel like their votes didn’t count. On top of that, Russian interference and online misinformation showed how easy it is for outside forces to influence public opinion.

These problems didn’t go away. In fact, distrust in elections grew over the next few years. More Americans began to believe that the system was rigged against them, or that elections were being stolen—especially when leaders repeated those claims without evidence.

A Country More Divided

Trump’s time in office made the country more divided than it already was. Some people saw him as a necessary change. Others saw him as a threat to democracy and civil rights. These sharply different views made it harder for Americans to talk to each other, even within families and communities.

The anger and mistrust that built up during and after 2016 is still with us today.

What We Can Learn

The 2016 election didn’t create all of America’s problems, but it made many of them more obvious. It showed how fragile civil rights protections can be, how much power corporations still have, and how important it is to protect fair and trustworthy elections.

These are issues that affect everyone—no matter which side of politics they’re on. If we want a more stable and fair country, we’ll have to face these challenges head-on and find ways to work through them together.

Trump’s first term had some limits. Many civil servants, military leaders, and agency officials still felt bound by their oath to the Constitution and worked to stop the most extreme ideas from becoming policy. But that guardrail is gone.

Now that Trump has returned to power, he’s made it clear that loyalty to him comes before qualifications or experience. Many of his new appointees were chosen not for their ability to govern, but for their willingness to follow orders and ignore norms. He and Elon Musk, working in tandem, are actively dismantling the very institutions that once held him back—often pushing the limits of legal authority or bypassing it altogether.

This isn’t just about politics. It’s about whether government still works for the people—or only for those at the top. What happens next depends on whether the public is paying attention, staying informed, and willing to push back when power is abused.