Hollywood, Coca-Cola, and Blue Jeans: The Soft Power Play

When you think about American power, it’s easy to picture tanks, military bases, or the White House. But some of the most influential tools the U.S. ever used didn’t come from a Pentagon briefing—they came from a movie studio, a soda fountain, or a Levi’s store.

During Pax Americana, the U.S. didn’t just export weapons and dollars. It exported something even more powerful: culture.

From Hollywood films to fast food, from pop music to the American Dream, the United States became a global brand—and that brand played a huge role in shaping the world order.

Hollywood: The Global Storyteller

After WWII, American movies flooded international markets. They weren’t just entertainment—they were vehicles for values:

• Individualism

• Freedom

• Democracy

• Capitalism

Audiences from Paris to Seoul were watching American lives, struggles, and dreams unfold on screen. Whether it was Casablanca or Star Wars, these stories subtly (or not-so-subtly) spread American ideals about right and wrong, good and evil, heroes and villains.

Hollywood didn’t just show the world what America was—it showed what people around the world could aspire to be.

Coke, Levi’s, and the Global American Lifestyle

• A bottle of Coca-Cola became a symbol of modernity and freedom—so much so that it’s been banned or boycotted in countries resisting U.S. influence.

• Levi’s jeans were once smuggled into the Soviet Union like precious contraband.

• McDonald’s became shorthand for American consumerism and convenience—its arrival in Moscow in 1990 symbolized the fall of communism to some.

These products weren’t just products. They were portable pieces of American life, offering a taste of prosperity, individuality, and simplicity.

Music, TV, and the American Soundtrack

From rock ’n’ roll to hip hop, American music shaped global youth culture—and challenged authority along the way.

TV shows like Dallas, Friends, and The Simpsons gave the world a window into everyday American life—messy, funny, imperfect, but full of freedom and possibility.

Even when the stories weren’t flattering, they were real—and they were everywhere.

Soft Power vs. Hard Power

What the U.S. mastered during Pax Americana was the balance of hard power (military, money, trade) and soft power (influence, culture, values).

Where other empires ruled with force, America often ruled with attraction. People wanted what it had—or at least what it represented.

But not everyone welcomed this influence.

When Soft Power Backfires

Cultural dominance can also breed resentment:

• In conservative societies, American media has been seen as corrupting or immoral.

• In post-colonial nations, U.S. branding can feel like a new kind of imperialism—one that sells burgers instead of bullets, but still rewrites local culture.

• Critics argue that global “Americanization” flattens traditions, replaces diversity with uniformity, and turns everything into a market.

So while many around the world embraced American culture, others resisted it—or tried to fight it off entirely.

What Comes Next

The U.S. didn’t need to conquer the world—it just needed to sell it something irresistible. Culture, in this era, was currency.

But even the best branding campaign needs a solid product behind it. As Pax Americana rolled on, it wasn’t always clear whether the promises of freedom and prosperity matched the reality—especially for people back home.

Tomorrow, we’ll dig into a different kind of power: economic power.
Because behind the movies and music was something even bigger: money.

Guns, Bases, and Bombers: The Military Backbone of Pax Americana

When people think of peace, they don’t usually think of tanks, fighter jets, or missile silos.

But when it comes to Pax Americana—the era of global order built by the United States after WWII—military power was the steel frame holding it all together. It wasn’t about conquest, but it was about control.

The U.S. didn’t just promise peace.
It made sure everyone knew it had the firepower to enforce it.

Bases Everywhere, All the Time

After WWII, the U.S. made a radical decision: it wouldn’t bring its troops home.

Instead, it built a global military presence unlike anything the world had seen.

• Europe: Tens of thousands of troops stationed in Germany, Italy, and the UK.

• Asia: Bases in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and later Guam.

• Middle East & Africa: Airstrips, radar stations, and rapid deployment hubs.

• The “Lily Pad” Strategy: Dozens of smaller bases scattered across the globe, ready for quick action.

Today, the U.S. maintains around 750 military installations in more than 80 countries.

These bases weren’t just for defense. They were signals—reminders that the U.S. was always present, always watching, and always ready.

Alliances as Force Multipliers

Military strength wasn’t just about boots on the ground—it was about alliances.

• NATO (1949): The first peacetime military alliance in U.S. history. “An attack on one is an attack on all.”

• U.S.-Japan Security Pact: Gave America a stronghold in the Pacific.

• South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and more: Each agreement extended U.S. influence and created a global web of military cooperation.

These alliances weren’t just mutual defense pacts. They were political partnerships—tools for shaping the world in America’s image.

The Bomb That Changed Everything

After dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. emerged as the first and only nuclear power—for a time.

Even after the Soviet Union caught up, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) helped prevent another world war. Both sides knew a nuclear fight would mean global annihilation.

That fear—strange as it sounds—kept the peace.

And behind that peace was a massive U.S. nuclear arsenal, backed by submarines, bombers, and intercontinental missiles, many still stationed around the globe to this day.

Peace Through Strength… or Global Domination?

All of this raises a key question: was Pax Americana about keeping the world safe—or about controlling it?

• To some, U.S. military power protected democracy, deterred aggression, and kept fragile regions from falling into chaos.

• To others, it looked like imperialism in a new form—not conquest, but coercion. Not occupation, but dominance.

Either way, it worked—for a while.

No world wars. Fewer large-scale conflicts between great powers. A relatively stable global order.

But military might was only part of the Pax. The U.S. also used something else—softer, subtler tools—to win hearts, minds, and markets.

What’s Next?

Tomorrow, we’ll look at how America exported not just troops and tanks, but something far more persuasive: its culture.

From movies to music to Big Macs, the next layer of Pax Americana wasn’t enforced by generals—it was sold by storytellers.

Transported Beyond Seas

“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences…”

When the Founders wrote that line in the Declaration of Independence, they weren’t being poetic—they were making a legal and moral accusation. Under British rule, colonists were sometimes seized and shipped across the Atlantic to face trial in England, in courts that did not recognize their rights, and among juries that did not understand their communities.

These weren’t trials; they were warnings. They were reminders that power, unaccountable, does not care for borders or justice. And they were one of the reasons Americans chose revolution.

Today, that same logic is whispering its way back into American politics.

In a recent conversation with El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, Donald Trump suggested that “homegrown criminals”—that is, American citizens—should be sent to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT prison. He praised the images of shackled prisoners packed into cells and told Bukele he’d need “about five more places.”

No U.S. citizens have been sent there—yet. But immigrants have.

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a work-authorized immigrant who lived in Maryland, worked full-time as a union sheet metal apprentice, and had a permit issued by the Department of Homeland Security, was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and thrown into CECOT. The government admitted it was an administrative error—but then refused to bring him back, arguing that once he was outside U.S. borders, he was beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

Later, they accused him of being MS-13 to justify leaving him in a foreign prison, despite no trial and a court order saying he should be returned.

This is how it starts.

First, an “administrative error.”
Then, a legal technicality.
Then, an accusation—untested, unproven, and politically convenient.

And soon, a precedent: that if the government decides you are undesirable, it can simply remove you—across borders, beyond protections, and outside the Constitution.

The Founders saw it coming. They called it tyranny.
We should too.

A Whisper of Tyranny: Homegrowns and the Death of Due Process

Let this sink in… the President of the United States is actively discussing sending U.S. citizens to terrorist prisons in El Salvador—effectively deporting them.

The Daily Beast

The president discussed the proposal during a conversation with Bukele—an ally in his agenda to expel undocumented immigrants without due process—about his mass immigration crackdown. Trump has deported about 250 individuals in the last month alone under the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime statute that targets anyone seen as an enemy of the American people.

“Homegrown criminals next,” he whispered to Bukele as he entered the Oval Office.

“I said homegrown’s the next,” he added, raising his voice. “The homegrowns. You got to build about five more places.”

Meanwhile, no progress appears to be made on returning someone from that prison who was sent there by administrative error.
NPR

El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele said on Monday that he was not inclined to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States.

Over in my piece on Tyranny, where I quoted the Declaration of Independence, I quoted some of these complaints brought against King George … but I really want to bring in a few more.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

The Post-WWII Pivot: America Steps into the Empire Role

When World War II ended in 1945, much of the world lay in ruins.

Cities across Europe and Asia were bombed-out husks. Millions were dead or displaced. Economies had collapsed. The old powers—Britain, France, Germany, Japan—were broken, bankrupt, or discredited.

But not the United States.

In fact, America came out of the war stronger than ever—economically, militarily, and politically. And with the rest of the world in chaos, the U.S. made a choice: it would help rebuild the world, but on its own terms.

This wasn’t about taking over in the old imperial way. It was about building a new kind of global order—with the U.S. at the center of it.

A Superpower Like No Other

Here’s what made the U.S. stand apart in 1945:

• It produced half of the world’s industrial output.

• It held two-thirds of the world’s gold reserves.

• Its economy was booming while everyone else was digging out of rubble.

• And it now possessed the most powerful military on Earth, including the atomic bomb.

It wasn’t just strong—it was untouched. No cities destroyed. No foreign troops on its soil. No economic collapse. That gave it an enormous head start.

A World Looking for Leadership

The global power vacuum was real. Europe needed rebuilding. Japan was occupied. The Soviet Union was emerging as a rival superpower. Colonial empires were collapsing.

The U.S. could have pulled back into isolation. But instead, it leaned in—hard.

Here’s what it did:

• Founded the United Nations (1945): A new forum to prevent another world war.

• Launched the Bretton Woods system (1944): Stabilized global currencies, created the IMF and World Bank, and made the U.S. dollar the backbone of the global economy.

• Backed the Marshall Plan (1948): Poured billions into rebuilding Western Europe.

• Led the creation of NATO (1949): A military alliance designed to contain the Soviet Union and guarantee peace in Europe.

These were all deliberate moves to shape the postwar world.

Strategy, Not Charity

None of this was purely altruistic. Yes, it helped countries rebuild. But it also created a world that was safe for American capitalism, friendly to U.S. values, and open to American leadership.

It was a world where the U.S. set the rules—on trade, on money, on security.

This wasn’t empire in the old British or Roman sense. But it was still a system built to preserve American power—and protect American interests.

And for a while, it worked.

What Comes Next

Pax Americana didn’t just happen. The U.S. made a strategic choice to step into the role of global leader—and many parts of the world welcomed that leadership.

But power always comes with trade-offs.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at the military muscle that kept the Pax in place—and what it cost to keep the peace.

The American Peace: What Pax Americana Means and Why It Still Matters

After World War II, the world looked to the United States for leadership—and the U.S. stepped up in a big way. What followed was something historians later called Pax Americana, Latin for “American Peace.”

But what does that actually mean? And why should you care in 2025?

Let’s break it down.

What Is Pax Americana?

“Pax Americana” is a term used to describe the stretch of history—especially after WWII—when the U.S. became the most powerful country in the world and used that power to shape global peace and order.

It borrows its name from earlier eras:

• Pax Romana (“Roman Peace”): when Rome ruled much of the known world and enforced peace through its empire.

• Pax Britannica: when Britain’s navy and colonies gave it global influence in the 1800s.

In both cases, peace wasn’t just the absence of war—it was a system built and enforced by a dominant power.

Pax Americana was the modern version of that idea.

How Did the U.S. Shape the World?

After WWII, the U.S. had the strongest military, the biggest economy, and was untouched by the destruction that leveled Europe and Asia. It used this moment to build a new global system—with itself at the center.

That included:

• Military power: Dozens of bases around the world, a permanent presence in Europe and Asia, and alliances like NATO.

• Cultural influence: Hollywood, blue jeans, rock ’n’ roll, and later the internet—all made in America.

• Economic dominance: The U.S. dollar became the world’s reserve currency, and American banks, companies, and products spread everywhere.

But there’s one piece of the puzzle people often miss…

Trade Was a Weapon of Peace

The U.S. didn’t just use tanks and treaties to shape the world—it used trade.

Opening up American markets to allies like Japan, Germany, and South Korea helped them rebuild after war. And by tying their economies to ours, the U.S. hoped to make future wars less likely. After all, it’s harder to go to war with someone when your economy depends on them.

In this way, economic interdependence became a tool of diplomacy. Trade agreements weren’t just about business—they were about building loyalty, stability, and peace.

Why It Still Matters

Pax Americana created a long stretch without major wars between world powers. It brought stability to much of the world. But it also came with costs—some of them felt most deeply by American workers, whose lives were changed by the very trade policies meant to keep the peace.

This series will explore how that happened.

• How America built this global order.

• How trade became a superpower tool.

• And how, somewhere along the way, the system that shaped the modern world stopped working for many of the people it was meant to protect.

Tomorrow

We’ll look at how America rose to power after WWII—and why that moment changed everything.

Series Intro: What Happened to the American Century?

For most of the last 80 years, the United States didn’t just lead the world—it built the system the world runs on.

We called it Pax Americana—Latin for “American Peace.”

It promised prosperity, order, and stability—at home and abroad.

And for a while, it delivered.

But today, the cracks are impossible to ignore:

• Millions of good jobs gone

• Factory towns hollowed out

• A middle class that’s no longer climbing

• A nation more divided—and more uncertain—than it’s been in generations

So what happened?

Was it trade?

Automation?

Policy failure?

Or was it something deeper—a broken promise buried beneath decades of economic change?

This 3-Week Series Tries to Answer That.

We’re going to tell a story over the next three weeks—one post each day—looking at:

Week 1: What Was Pax Americana?

How the U.S. shaped the post-WWII global order through military might, cultural influence, and economic strategy.

Week 2: How Trade Became a Superpower Tool

How opening markets brought peace and power—and laid the groundwork for the biggest economic transformation in U.S. history.

Week 3: The Fallout at Home

How automation, offshoring, and policy failures gutted American industry—and what we’re doing now to try and rebuild.

Who This Is For

• If you’ve ever wondered why your hometown doesn’t feel the same…

• If you’ve heard “globalization” blamed for everything but don’t know what it actually means…

• If you’ve watched leaders promise to “bring our jobs back” and wondered if that’s even possible…

This series is for you.

No jargon. No shouting.

Just clear, honest storytelling—about where we’ve been, what we’ve lost, and what we still might build.

Start Here. Come Back Tomorrow.

This isn’t just a history lesson. It’s a story about us—and where we go from here.

Subscribe, bookmark, or follow along daily.

Because to fix what’s broken, we have to understand what we were trying to build in the first place.

New Series Incoming: As One Story Winds Down, Another Picks Up Steam

Over the past few weeks, Exploring Division has been about one thing: understanding the deep political rifts tearing through the U.S.—how we got here, what’s fueling the fire, and whether anything can truly bring us back from the brink.

That work’s not done yet.

There are still threads to follow, voices to include, and chapters to finish.

But as that series begins to wind down—and before it fully catches up to the latest headlines—I’m launching something new.

Something narrower in scope, but deeply tied to the moment we’re in right now.

It’s called: Pax Americana.

Why Now?

Because while the culture war rages and the political noise grows louder, something quieter—but no less important—is happening under the surface:

The old economic world order is breaking.

And not slowly.

Trump’s new tariffs, emergency economic powers, and foreign policy pivots are accelerating a shift that’s been coming for years.

We’re watching in real time as the trade system that held Pax Americana together—the alliances, the rules, the expectations—starts to fracture.

If Exploring Division is about understanding the cracks in the foundation of our democracy, Pax Americana is about tracing the cracks in the global economy we built—and asking who gets caught when it all starts to fall.

What to Expect

Pax Americana is a tightly structured, 3-week daily series.

It covers:

• How the U.S. built the post-WWII global order through military, economic, and cultural dominance

• How trade became the backbone of American power—and the quiet engine of global stability

• And how automation, globalization, and bad policy created the economic dislocation driving so much of our current political rage

It ends with a hard question:

If the world we built is ending—what are we fighting to save?

Why This Series Matters

Because it’s not just about tariffs or factories or GDP.

It’s about:

• Trust in institutions

• Our fractured national identity

• And the question behind every campaign speech and protest chant:

“Who is the economy really for?”

Read Along, Share, Question Everything

Pax Americana starts today.

Each post will be short, sharp, and focused.

You can follow daily, catch up weekly, or come back at the end and binge the whole arc.

But I hope you’ll read it—and I hope you’ll wrestle with it.

Because the world we’re stepping into wasn’t inevitable.

And the world we build next?

That part’s still up to us.

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.