What is MS-13, and How Did the U.S. Help Create It?

In our last post, we explored how the language we use—"undocumented" vs. "illegal"—shapes how we treat immigrants. But words are just one piece of the puzzle. To truly understand today’s immigration crisis, we also need to look at the deeper forces that push people to flee their homes in the first place. One of the most common explanations we hear is "gang violence." And one gang in particular gets all the headlines: MS-13.

You may have heard MS-13 described as a foreign threat, a violent force from Central America invading U.S. cities. But the truth is far more complicated—and far more uncomfortable. MS-13 didn’t come from El Salvador. It came from the United States. And U.S. policy played a major role in making it what it is today.

What Is MS-13?

The gang known as MS-13, short for Mara Salvatrucha, began in Los Angeles in the 1980s. "Mara" is Central American slang for gang. "Salvatrucha" likely combines "Salvadoran" with "trucha," a slang term meaning clever or alert. The "13" refers to their allegiance to the Mexican Mafia, also known as "La Eme."

MS-13 was formed by young Salvadoran immigrants, many of them refugees fleeing a brutal civil war back home. In L.A., they faced violence from other established gangs and little protection from law enforcement. Banding together for protection and identity, these youths started what would become MS-13. At the time, it was a small, local street gang—not the international criminal network it would later become.

The U.S. Role in the Salvadoran Civil War

To understand why so many Salvadorans fled to the U.S. in the first place, we have to look at the Salvadoran Civil War (1979–1992). During this conflict, the U.S. poured billions of dollars into supporting El Salvador's right-wing military government, viewing the conflict as part of the global Cold War fight against communism.

The Reagan administration, in particular, funneled aid and weapons to Salvadoran forces despite widespread reports of human rights abuses. U.S.-trained military units like the Atlacatl Battalion were responsible for massacres, including the infamous 1981 El Mozote massacre, where over 800 civilians were killed. Even after this, U.S. support continued.

These policies prolonged the war, destabilized the country, and left tens of thousands dead and even more displaced. Many of the refugees from this war ended up in Los Angeles, where MS-13 was born.

How Deportation Spread the Gang Internationally

In the 1990s, U.S. immigration policy took a sharp turn. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), signed by President Bill Clinton, expanded the list of crimes that could lead to mandatory deportation. Even legal immigrants with minor convictions were now subject to removal, often with no chance to plead their case before a judge.

Thousands of young people with gang ties were deported to El Salvador, a country still recovering from war and lacking the institutions to reintegrate them. In this chaotic environment, MS-13 evolved. What started as a U.S.-based street gang became a transnational criminal organization with a foothold in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Militarization and the Politics of Fear

After 9/11, the U.S. increasingly treated gang violence as a national security issue. MS-13 became a symbol used to justify tough-on-crime and anti-immigration policies. Successive administrations—Republican and Democrat alike—poured funding into militarized police, detention centers, and border security.

Meanwhile, U.S.-backed anti-gang crackdowns in Central America, like El Salvador's "Mano Dura" (Iron Fist) policies, often backfired. They filled prisons with young people, deepened gang identities, and gave MS-13 the structure and space to become more organized and violent.

A Bipartisan Legacy

The rise of MS-13 is not the fault of one party. It's the product of decades of decisions:

• Reagan and Bush Sr. funded the Salvadoran war effort and ignored atrocities.

• Clinton signed the 1996 deportation law that exported gang violence.

• George W. Bush framed MS-13 as a national security threat.

• Obama continued large-scale deportations while trying to stabilize the region.

• Trump used MS-13 as a political weapon to justify stripping asylum rights.

Each of these steps contributed to the conditions that allowed MS-13 to thrive.

Why It Matters Today

MS-13 is often cited to justify harsh immigration crackdowns. But many of the people arriving at our southern border today are fleeing the very violence that U.S. policy helped create. Instead of treating them as threats, we should be asking what it would take to stop the cycle of violence and displacement.

Toward Solutions: What Real Reform Looks Like

We can’t undo the past, but we can stop repeating it. Here are a few ways forward:

Reform Deportation Laws

• End mandatory deportation for minor, non-violent offenses.

• Restore judicial discretion and case-by-case review.

Expand Legal Migration Pathways

• Create regional asylum processing centers.

• Increase access to Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Invest in Central America—Beyond Police and Prisons

• Prioritize education, healthcare, and economic development.

• Fund anti-corruption efforts and civil society organizations.

End the Criminalization of Migration

• Make unauthorized border crossings civil, not criminal, offenses.

Restore Asylum Protections and Due Process

• Reinstate fair asylum interviews.

• Expand access to legal representation.

Fund Local Violence Prevention

• Support youth outreach, gang exit programs, and trauma care.

Invest in Root-Cause Solutions—They Cost Less and Work Better

• Detaining an immigrant in the U.S. costs about $165 per person per day (source).

• Vocational training in El Salvador can cost as little as $0.25 per hour (source).

• That means for the cost of one day of detention, we could provide 660 hours of job training—a far better investment in long-term safety and stability.

Conclusion: Accountability and Responsibility

MS-13 didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It was shaped by U.S. foreign policy, immigration law, and decades of political choices. We destabilized El Salvador, exported our gang problems, and then used the fallout to justify fear-driven policies.

But we have the power to break that cycle. By investing in people, not prisons, and by treating migration as a human challenge—not a criminal one—we can build a safer, more just future for everyone.

And let’s be honest: compassion isn’t just the right thing to do. It’s also cheaper.

Undocumented, Not Illegal

Rethinking Immigration, Enforcement, and Economic Reality

Every time you hear the phrase “illegal immigrant,” you’re hearing more than just a label — you’re hearing a political argument. Words matter, especially when they shape public perception, guide policy, and justify unequal treatment.

In the U.S., the immigration debate is often reduced to a caricature: lawbreaking border crossers versus patriotic enforcers. But the real picture is far more complex — and far more human. This post breaks down what the language of immigration says (and doesn’t say), how enforcement actually works, and what real solutions could look like for immigrants, employers, and the nation as a whole.

“Undocumented” vs. “Illegal”: What’s the Difference?

Many people use “illegal immigrant” to describe anyone without legal status in the U.S., but that term is both legally imprecise and politically loaded.

Here’s why:

• Undocumented immigrants are people who are in the country without current legal authorization — often because they overstayed a visa (a civil violation) or entered without inspection (a misdemeanor on first offense).

• “Illegal” implies that the person themselves is a crime — not just their action. But under U.S. law, only actions can be illegal. There’s no such thing as an “illegal person.”

Even major style guides like the Associated Press now recommend using “undocumented” rather than “illegal” to avoid dehumanizing language that fuels stigma.

What Happens to Undocumented Workers?

Undocumented immigrants face steep consequences — detention, deportation, separation from families, and bars to future legal re-entry — even when they’ve lived in the U.S. for years, paid taxes, and contributed to their communities.

And despite popular myths, they’re less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. A 2024 Reuters fact check showed that in Texas, the homicide conviction rate for undocumented immigrants was 2.2 per 100,000 — lower than the 3.0 per 100,000 rate for native-born Americans.

Still, immigration enforcement disproportionately targets undocumented individuals, even though many are filling essential roles in our economy.

What Happens to Employers Who Hire Them?

Federal law requires employers to verify a new hire’s authorization using Form I-9, but enforcement is notoriously lax. Many employers simply accept documents that “reasonably appear genuine” — even when they suspect otherwise. And it’s completely legal for them to do so, as long as they don’t knowingly violate the law.

Penalties on Paper

• Civil fines range from $698 to $27,894 per unauthorized worker.

• Criminal charges can apply for a pattern of illegal hiring, with fines up to $3,000 per worker and up to 6 months in jail.

In Practice

Very few employers are prosecuted. While two companies did forfeit $2 million each in 2024, these cases are the exception, not the rule. A 2021 shift in DHS policy ended mass workplace raids and focused instead on employers who exploit labor, but audits remain rare and underfunded (source).

Who’s Really Working Without Papers?

The U.S. economy runs on undocumented labor — and has for decades.

• As of 2022, about 11 million people were living in the U.S. without legal status, with 8.3 million of them in the workforce — about 4.8% of all U.S. workers (Pew Research).

• In some industries, that presence is even higher:

  • Construction: 13%

  • Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing: 12%

  • Leisure & Hospitality: 7% (source)

These jobs are often grueling, poorly paid, and unfilled by U.S. citizens. In short: undocumented immigrants are doing work that needs to be done, but the system provides no legal way for them to do it.

Access to Social Services: Facts vs. Fear

Contrary to popular belief, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for nearly all federal public assistance programs. That includes:

• Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and housing assistance

• Exceptions include:

  • Emergency medical care (via Emergency Medicaid)

  • Public K–12 education (guaranteed by Plyler v. Doe, 1982)

  • Free/reduced school meals and WIC benefits for children (Migration Policy Institute)

Even where benefits are technically accessible, fear often keeps people away. The Trump-era “public charge” rule created a chilling effect that reduced participation in programs by mixed-status families, including U.S. citizen children (The Guardian).

So why do undocumented immigrants stay? It’s not for free stuff. It’s for work — often the only path to stability, family reunification, or even safety from persecution.

Enforcement for Workers vs. Employers: A Lopsided Reality

Undocumented workers face deportation, detention, and the daily risk of losing everything — including family. Employers, on the other hand, often walk away with minimal consequences. This lopsided system reflects not just legal inconsistency, but a willful blindness to the economic realities that drive undocumented employment.

Immigrants aren’t coming here because the U.S. is handing out benefits — they’re coming because employers are hiring. And they’re staying because the work is here, and the law provides no viable way for most of them to participate legally.

What Would a Better System Look Like?

Reform isn’t just possible — it’s necessary. Here’s what a more functional, humane, and economically sound immigration system could include:

Expanded Legal Work Visas

Current visa programs for low-wage labor (like H-2A for agriculture) are cumbersome and too limited. We need scalable, affordable visa pathways that match labor market needs without exploiting workers.

Earned Legalization

Millions of undocumented immigrants have lived here for years, paid taxes, raised families, and contributed to our communities. A path to legal status — not necessarily citizenship — would benefit them and the economy.

Real Accountability for Employers

Make enforcement real — not by punishing paperwork errors, but by cracking down on companies that exploit workers or knowingly break the law. Pair penalties with support for ethical hiring practices.

National E-Verify with Worker Protections

Implement a national employment verification system with strict oversight to prevent discrimination, wrongful firings, and misuse.

Decouple Immigration from Local Policing

People should feel safe reporting crimes or labor violations without risking deportation. Separating immigration enforcement from local law enforcement is key to public safety and workplace fairness.

Conclusion: Language, Logic, and Leadership

“Illegal immigrant” isn’t just an inaccurate term — it’s a distraction. It blames the people with the least power while letting the system’s real flaws go unaddressed.

If we want an immigration system that actually works — for citizens, immigrants, and employers alike — we need to be honest about who’s here, why they’re here, and what the law is doing (or failing to do) about it.

The problem isn’t that undocumented immigrants are breaking the law.

The problem is that the law is broken.

The Golden Tickets: How Trump’s New Grift Works

The Parable of the Golden Tickets

There once was a famous showman named Don, known throughout the land for his grand promises and golden towers. One day, Don announced a new spectacle: The Palace of Freedom, a place he claimed would be the most luxurious, exclusive, and powerful gathering of patriots in history.

But the palace had no doors, no stage, and no performers. Still, Don proclaimed, “I’m offering Golden Tickets—rare, valuable, and only for the loyal. Those who buy them now may one day be granted a seat at my private banquet. Or perhaps they’ll become rich! Who knows?”

People rushed to buy them, not because they’d seen the palace, but because they trusted Don—or feared missing out. They traded their savings, their hopes, and even borrowed from friends. Don’s family quietly kept most of the tickets for themselves.

The palace never opened.

But Don held a small dinner for a few of the richest ticket holders and called it proof the dream was real. Meanwhile, he sold more tickets, opened a new booth, and claimed another miracle was just around the corner.

Some began to ask: Where is the palace? Why does the door never open?

But Don smiled and said, “The real palace is your belief in me. And the more you give, the closer you are to entering.”

And so the people kept buying, while Don kept counting.

What This Means in Real Life

This isn’t just a parable—it’s a fairly accurate description of how Donald Trump is currently using crypto, DeFi, and political branding to turn followers into revenue.

Let’s look at two real-world versions of those “Golden Tickets”:

#1 The $TRUMP Meme Coin

This is a cryptocurrency token bearing Trump’s name. It’s not backed by a product, a policy, or any clear purpose. Instead, it was marketed to Trump supporters as a kind of status symbol—and a chance to win favors. The top 220 holders were promised a dinner with Trump. The top 25 got even more.

But here’s the catch:

• Trump-affiliated companies own 80% of the coin.

• He profits directly when people buy and trade it.

• The coin’s value depends entirely on hype and loyalty, not utility.

So what are buyers really paying for? Access. Not to a useful product, but to a political celebrity.

#2 World Liberty Financial

This was pitched as a new kind of financial platform—a decentralized, Trump-backed alternative to the global system. Investors were told to buy “governance tokens,” which supposedly would let them help shape the platform’s future.

But:

• The platform still doesn’t exist in any real, functioning way.

• The Trump family took $400 million in fees from early fundraising.

• The tokens give “voting rights” over a system that doesn’t operate.

It’s the palace all over again: lots of golden tickets, but no open doors.

Why It Matters

These schemes work because they blur the lines between fandom, politics, and finance. People aren’t just supporting a candidate—they’re “investing” in their loyalty. Trump has turned belief into a business, and every new venture becomes a test of faith.

It’s not just about whether it’s legal.
It’s about whether it’s honest.

Most of the people buying in won’t get dinner with Trump. They won’t strike it rich. They’ll just be left holding tickets to a show that was never really meant to happen.

Even Republicans are questioning this grift:

“I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to charge people to come into the Capitol and take a tour.” - Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska

“This is my president that we’re talking about, but I am willing to say that this gives me pause.” - Sen. Cynthia Lummis, of Wyoming

Final Thought

In the end, grifts like these aren’t about building anything real. They’re about taking just enough truth—a dinner here, a flashy coin there—to convince people the palace is coming, as long as they keep paying.

But the real palace? It’s built out of your money—and you’re never meant to get inside.

Sources and Further Reading

• Trump’s Biggest Meme-Coin Investors Get Invited to Dinner With the President – Wall Street Journal

• How Trump Turned a Dinner Invite Into a Crypto Boon Worth Millions – Washington Post

• How the Trump Family Took Over World Liberty Financial – Reuters

• Trump Campaign Funnels Donor Money Into His Own Businesses – USA Today

• Trump 2024 Campaign Merchandise and Side Hustles – Wikipedia

Trump Pardons Fraudsters

The Washington Post

Liz Oyer, the Justice Department’s recently fired pardon attorney, made a staggering claim on social media this week: President Donald Trump’s pardons of people convicted of white-collar crimes have cost Americans $1 billion.

Let that sink in. A president, convicted of business fraud, is now championing fraudsters all over the country by pardoning them.

This is not okay. This is not normal.

The pardon system is broken, and was never designed to be wielded by an immoral actor.

Can We Rebuild? Industrial Policy, Tariffs, and the 2025 Pivot

After decades of offshoring, deindustrialization, and policy neglect, something strange is happening in Washington:

People are talking about factories again.

From chip plants in Arizona to tariff hikes in 2025, the United States is trying to rebuild its economic engine—and reclaim the middle-class jobs it once exported away.

But the big question remains:

Are we actually rebuilding something new?
Or just slapping fresh paint on the same broken machine?

The Return of Industrial Policy

For decades, industrial policy was a dirty word in U.S. politics—seen as top-down meddling that picked winners and losers.

Now? It’s back in fashion. In fact, it might be the only thing both parties agree on.

Key efforts include:

• The CHIPS and Science Act: Investing billions in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing.

• The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): Funding clean energy infrastructure, battery factories, and domestic production of green tech.

• Infrastructure law: Repairing roads, ports, and bridges to support a more resilient economy.

• “Buy American” rules: Prioritizing U.S.-made goods in federal contracts.

All of this amounts to a quiet revolution in U.S. economic strategy—one that puts place-based, job-focused investment front and center again.

The 2025 Tariff Pivot

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s return in 2025 has brought tariffs and economic emergency powers back into the spotlight.

What’s new:

• Broad executive authority to impose tariffs unilaterally, citing “economic security.”

• New import restrictions targeting China, Mexico, and even some allies.

• Expansion of the “America First” agenda through supply chain reshoring mandates and targeted tax breaks.

To supporters, this is long-overdue muscle-flexing—finally putting American workers first after decades of being “sold out.”

To critics, it risks:

• Retaliation

• Price increases

• The erosion of global alliances built through trade

Either way, it’s a sharp break from the laissez-faire consensus of the post-Cold War era.

Can These Policies Actually Rebuild the Middle Class?

That’s the trillion-dollar question.

Potential strengths:

• Reinvesting in regions left behind by globalization.

• Creating new industrial hubs around green energy and advanced manufacturing.

• Breaking dependence on unstable foreign supply chains.

Major challenges:

• Most new jobs require specialized training or degrees.

• Many factories are heavily automated, meaning fewer hires.

• Without long-term investment in workers, new plants may not lift local economies the way old ones did.

In short: rebuilding the supply side without rebuilding the people side won’t be enough.

Are We Repeating Old Mistakes?

There’s a danger in industrial nostalgia.

We talk about bringing jobs back, but:

• Are we recreating mass employment—or capital-intensive, robot-run plants?

• Are we investing in communities—or offering one-time tax incentives?

• Are we fixing the system—or just shifting which corporations get favored?

America once built the blueprint for postwar prosperity.
But do we still remember how?

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll close out the series with a bigger question:

If this system isn’t working for everyone—what are we fighting to save?

Because rebuilding is one thing. But reimagining? That’s what real recovery might require.

Militarization Without Martial Law

Why Trump’s New Executive Order Demands Our Attention

On April 28, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens." At first glance, the order frames itself as a straightforward effort to "support the police" and "enhance public safety." However, a closer look reveals something much more serious: this order dramatically shifts the balance of power between civilian governments and armed forces within the United States.

This executive order is not a declaration of martial law. Yet it builds the infrastructure that could enable martial law-like conditions if future emergencies are declared. This post will break down what the order actually does, compare it to historical patterns where democracies slid into authoritarianism, identify early warning signs we should all watch for, sketch a hypothetical timeline based on historical precedents, and offer a clear, empowering plan of action to defend democracy peacefully and effectively.

The goal is not to stoke fear. It is to raise awareness — and remind every American that vigilance, knowledge, and civic action are the best antidotes to authoritarianism.

Breaking Down the Executive Order

The executive order signed by President Trump does four major things:

1. Legal Protection for Police Officers:

• Provides federal legal support and private-sector resources to defend officers facing lawsuits over their conduct.

2. Militarization of Local Law Enforcement:

• Directs the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to expand transfers of military equipment, training, and even personnel to local police departments.

3. Weakening Civilian Oversight:

• Orders the Department of Justice to review and potentially rescind "consent decrees" that monitor abusive police departments, under the rationale that they "obstruct law enforcement."

4. Targeting State and Local Officials:

• Instructs the Attorney General to sue or otherwise punish officials who "obstruct" criminal enforcement or who allegedly engage in "discriminatory" DEI practices that hinder policing.

The language is careful. The order does not call for martial law, suspend elections, or outright federalize the police. But it erodes critical safeguards that prevent the armed enforcement apparatus of the state from becoming an unaccountable tool of political power.

Historical Lessons — When Democracies Erode

History offers clear warnings about how seemingly "normal" expansions of security powers can lead to democratic breakdowns.

Turkey (1980):

• Before the 1980 coup, the Turkish government ramped up militarization and allowed the military to "assist" policing. After months of rising violence, the military seized power, arrested tens of thousands, and suspended elections.

Poland (1981):

• General Wojciech Jaruzelski declared martial law to crush the growing Solidarity labor movement. Preparations involved legal shielding for security forces and demonizing activists as "dangerous to public order."

South Korea (2024):

• President Yoon Suk Yeol avoided declaring martial law outright but achieved similar control through mass militarization of police, expanded surveillance, and the targeting of protesters under "domestic threat" labels.

The pattern is clear: Militarization + emergency framing + weakened civilian oversight = a pathway to authoritarian rule — often without needing to formally declare martial law.

Early Warning Signs to Watch For

Here are key red flags based on historical patterns:

• National Emergency Declarations: Especially around crime, immigration, or protests.

• Federalization of Local Police: Local law enforcement subordinated to DOJ or DHS control.

• Targeted Arrests: Civil society leaders, activists, and journalists detained under vague pretexts.

• Surveillance Expansion: New domestic intelligence programs targeting political activity.

• Demonization of Groups: Immigrants, labor unions, or civil rights groups framed as security threats.

• Election Disruptions: Postponements, restrictions, or delegitimization of elections.

Not all of these would occur at once, but several happening together would be a major alarm bell.

A Hypothetical Timeline — How It Could Play Out

Month 0:

• Executive order signed. Public debate remains polarized.

Months 1-2:

• Major "crisis" (real or exaggerated) leads to a declared "national emergency."

• Federal task forces embedded in local police.

Months 2-3:

• Targeted arrests of organizers and activists.

• Dissolution of remaining federal oversight on police departments.

Months 3-4:

• Open militarization of city policing.

• Restricted zones and curfews introduced.

Months 4-5:

• State officials resisting federal power face lawsuits, loss of funding, or federal force deployment.

Months 5-6:

• Efforts to delay elections or restrict voting framed as "necessary security measures."

This hypothetical sequence is not inevitable — but it is drawn directly from real-world examples.

How We Can Stop It

Strengthen Local Democracy:

• Pressure local officials to reject federal overreach.

• Demand police accountability at the local level.

Support Independent Journalism:

• Subscribe to and share reporting from independent, investigative outlets.

Build Civic Networks:

• Connect with community groups, unions, churches, and activist networks.

• Prepare nonviolent rapid response strategies.

Defend Civil Liberties Legally:

• Support organizations filing lawsuits against unconstitutional actions.

• Demand transparency through FOIA requests and public records.

Protect Electoral Integrity:

• Volunteer for election protection programs.

• Advocate for robust, transparent election procedures.

Stay Calm, Stay Committed:

• Authoritarian regimes thrive on chaos and fear.

• Organized, peaceful, principled resistance is historically the most effective counter.

Conclusion

Trump’s 2025 executive order is not a coup. It is not a declaration of martial law. But it is a loud, flashing warning light.

We cannot afford to look away. By staying informed, strengthening our democratic institutions, building resilient communities, and defending civil liberties early and often, we can ensure that America’s future remains free, open, and democratic.

The time to act is not after authoritarianism becomes obvious. It’s now, while we still have the freedom to organize, speak, and vote.

Remembering Pope Francis

Pope Francis passed away today at 88. He died in his Vatican residence, just one day after Easter. His final public words were a blessing for peace — fitting for a man whose papacy was defined by compassion, humility, and care for those often forgotten.

Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he made history when he became the first Latin American pope in 2013. But what really set him apart was how deeply human he remained in the role. He rejected the palatial papal apartment in favor of a guesthouse. He rode in a Ford Focus. He kissed the feet of refugees, washed the feet of prisoners, and reminded everyone — especially church leaders — that power should serve, not dominate.

He preached a Gospel rooted in mercy. He told us not to judge people for being gay. He welcomed divorced and remarried Catholics back to the table. He called for civil unions long before it was safe to do so in church circles. He said the death penalty has no place in a modern, moral world. And he warned against what he called a “globalization of indifference” — where people become numb to suffering.

He challenged the rich and powerful too. In Laudato Si’, his climate encyclical, he called on all of us — especially governments and corporations — to protect our planet and prioritize the poor. In Fratelli Tutti, he laid out a vision of solidarity and social friendship, one that didn’t rely on borders or tribes but on shared human dignity.

Was he perfect? No. No pope is. He faced resistance inside the Vatican. Some of his reforms were incomplete. But he opened doors that had been shut for centuries. And he changed the global conversation — not just within the Church, but beyond it.

Pope Francis reminded us that faith, at its best, means showing up for others. Listening more than speaking. Walking with the wounded. Being brave enough to choose love over fear.

That legacy matters. And it will live on — not just in Vatican halls, but wherever people are still trying to live with kindness, humility, and hope.

Rest in peace, Pope Francis. You were the shepherd we needed.

SCOTUS Issues Emergency Order to Stop Trump Migrant Deportations

In a rare and powerful move, the Supreme Court stepped in to block one of the Trump administration’s most extreme actions to date—an attempt to deport Venezuelan migrants to a prison in El Salvador before they had a chance to challenge their removal.
Slate

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s reported efforts to fly Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvador prison before they could challenge their deportation. The court’s late-night intervention is an extraordinary and highly unusual rebuke to the government, one that may well mark a turning point in the majority’s approach to this administration.

This decision offers a glimmer of hope in a time when democratic norms are under daily assault. It shows that even now, the rule of law can prevail—and that the courts can still act as a check on power when it matters most. For those fighting for justice and humanity in our immigration system, this moment is a reminder: the fight is not over, and we are not alone.

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 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.

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.

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

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.