How George Floyd’s Murder Changed America

On May 25, 2020, the world watched a horrifying video: a police officer in Minneapolis knelt on George Floyd’s neck for over nine minutes, ignoring his cries of “I can’t breathe.” George Floyd was an unarmed Black man. His death was painful to watch — and it sparked something powerful.

People across the country — and around the world — took to the streets. In the middle of a pandemic, millions protested against police brutality and racial injustice. From small towns to big cities, Americans of all races marched under the banner of Black Lives Matter. It was the largest wave of protests in the U.S. since the 1960s civil rights movement.

A Moment of Unity… at First

At first, most Americans agreed something had to change. Polls showed about two-thirds of the country supported the protests. Even people who had never spoken out before began to talk about racism, police reform, and justice.

But that unity didn’t last long.

Division Grows

As some protests were met with tear gas and rubber bullets — or turned chaotic with looting — the political divide grew. Conservatives began focusing on “law and order,” calling the protests dangerous or violent. Liberals focused on the cause, pointing to long-standing racism in our systems.

Trust in police split sharply along party lines. A USA Today/Ipsos poll showed deep racial and political differences in how Americans viewed Floyd’s death and law enforcement in general. What started as a national moment of reckoning quickly became another front in the country’s culture wars.

Corporate America and the Culture Shift

The impact didn’t stop at the protests. Companies, sports teams, and celebrities began to speak out. Big brands pledged to fight racism. The NFL admitted it had been wrong to ignore players who had peacefully protested earlier. Confederate statues were removed. Streets were painted with “Black Lives Matter” in giant yellow letters.

But these changes also brought backlash. Some people felt the focus on race went too far. Words like “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” became targets for conservative media. The term “woke” — once used to describe being aware of injustice — became a political insult. And “critical race theory,” an academic idea most Americans had never heard of, became a national flashpoint.

Impact on Elections and the Bigger Picture

All this fed directly into election politics. Candidates on both sides used the protests and culture battles in their campaigns. Some Democrats embraced the movement for justice, while many Republicans warned of rising crime and “anti-police” attitudes.

The murder of George Floyd forced America to look in the mirror — but it also exposed just how divided we already were. Even our reactions to injustice became political.

So Where Do We Go From Here?

What happened in 2020 changed the country. It made more people aware of racial inequality. It pushed businesses and leaders to speak out. It showed the power of protest — and the depth of our divisions.

But it also left us with big questions: Can we have hard conversations without turning on each other? Can we fix systems without turning every issue into a culture war? Can we make room for both justice and safety?

We don’t have to agree on everything. But maybe we can agree to keep listening — and keep trying.

How Social Media and Misinformation Broke Our Trust

In 2018, a bombshell hit the world of social media and politics. A company called Cambridge Analytica had quietly gathered personal data from millions of Facebook users—without their permission. This data was then used to target voters with political ads during the 2016 election, trying to influence how people voted based on their online behavior.

But that wasn’t the only concern. Around the same time, we learned that Russian operatives had created fake social media accounts and flooded platforms like Facebook and Twitter with false stories, inflammatory memes, and divisive content. The goal? To stir up anger, confusion, and mistrust among Americans.

Suddenly, it was clear that the internet wasn’t just a place to share vacation photos or cat videos. It had become a powerful political weapon—and a dangerous one.

Big Tech’s Power, Our Rights at Risk

The Cambridge Analytica scandal pulled back the curtain on how much power big tech companies really have. Social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter (now X) weren’t just neutral spaces—they were shaping what people saw, thought, and believed.

Their algorithms—designed to keep users scrolling—often prioritized the most emotional, extreme, or shocking content. That meant false information spread faster than the truth. It also meant people were being shown only what they already agreed with, trapping them in what we now call echo chambers. Over time, this made people more divided, more suspicious, and less willing to talk to each other.

Civil rights were also caught in the crossfire. Misinformation targeted minority communities with lies about voting dates, polling locations, and candidates. Voter suppression in the digital age didn’t always look like someone blocking a polling place—it could now come through a meme or a tweet.

A Divided Nation

The fallout from these revelations was intense. Some people demanded accountability and stronger rules for tech companies. They called for better privacy protections, transparency about how content is promoted, and limits on how political ads are targeted.

But others saw these efforts as censorship or government overreach. Fueled by conspiracy theories, they believed social media was silencing conservative voices or hiding “the truth.”

That split—between those who wanted regulation and those who feared it—deepened America’s political divide. And because so much of this battle played out on social media, the cycle kept repeating: more outrage, more mistrust, more division.

Where Do We Go From Here?

What happened in 2018 wasn’t just a tech issue—it raised serious questions. When large companies can collect personal data, shape what information we see, and spread misleading content with little oversight, it can quietly chip away at the foundations of a healthy democracy.

But it’s not too late. We can push for better laws that protect our privacy and our votes. We can demand that tech companies be more transparent about how their platforms work. And most of all, we can slow down, ask questions, and think critically before we click share.

Because the truth shouldn’t be a casualty of convenience—and democracy shouldn’t be a casualty of profit.

The Confrontation Between Trump and the Supreme Court Has Arrived

The Atlantic

The justices ordered the government to seek the return of a man whom it had wrongfully deported.

…the Supreme Court upheld part of a lower-court decision ordering the Trump administration to seek to retrieve Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom—as The Atlantic first reported—the administration has acknowledged it mistakenly dispatched to El Salvador’s notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT. Abrego Garcia, who came to the United States illegally but was allowed to stay after a judge ruled that he was likely to be persecuted by gangs in his native El Salvador, would be the first person publicly known to be released from CECOT.

How COVID-19 Made America Even More Divided

When COVID-19 hit in 2020, it wasn’t just a health crisis—it became a stress test for American democracy. What started as a shared emergency quickly turned into yet another battleground in the nation’s growing divide.

Freedom vs. Responsibility

At first, Americans seemed united. People applauded healthcare workers, stayed home, and checked on neighbors. But that unity didn’t last long. Lockdowns and mask mandates—meant to protect lives—sparked heated debates. Some saw them as necessary precautions, while others saw them as government overreach. It became a fight between personal freedom and public health, with masks turning into political symbols. A simple piece of cloth somehow said whether you leaned red or blue.

The Role of Misinformation

As the pandemic went on, misinformation exploded—especially online. Some people believed the virus was overblown. Others thought the vaccine was a trick. These false ideas weren’t just random; they often split along political lines. People didn’t just disagree—they stopped trusting each other, the government, and even science. This deepened the feeling that Americans were living in two separate realities.

Corporate Power Grows While Small Businesses Struggle

While millions of workers lost their jobs and small businesses shut down, big corporations got even bigger. Tech companies, delivery services, and online retailers made record profits. At the same time, Congress passed trillions in relief—but a lot of that money didn’t make it to the everyday people who needed it most. Some big businesses got bailout funds while families waited weeks for a stimulus check. That raised real questions: Who does the system really serve? And why does it always seem to work better for the rich and powerful?

Civil Rights and Inequality

The virus didn’t hit everyone equally. Communities of color were hit the hardest—more infections, more deaths, and fewer resources. COVID-19 put a spotlight on long-standing inequalities in healthcare, jobs, and housing. It reminded the country that justice isn’t equally distributed—and for many, it fueled frustration and protest, especially during a tense election year.

Elections in a Pandemic

Voting in 2020 became a mess of fear and suspicion. With the virus still spreading, more people voted by mail than ever before. That should have been a good thing—making voting safer and more accessible—but it became another political fight. Some leaders cast doubt on mail-in voting, leading to confusion, lawsuits, and mistrust in the results. Instead of bringing Americans together during a crisis, the election pushed them further apart.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t create America’s divisions, but it exposed and deepened them. It showed how quickly public health, civil rights, and even basic facts can become political weapons. It raised hard questions about who has power, who is protected, and who is left behind.

If we want a future where the next crisis brings us together instead of tearing us apart, we need to rebuild trust—in our systems, in each other, and in the truth.

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.