Iris Monterroso Lost Her Baby in ICE Custody. We Should All Care.

In May, the Nashville Banner reported on Iris Monterroso, a young woman arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Tennessee while she was eight weeks pregnant. Iris had no criminal record. She was detained in a facility that, by her account, failed to provide medical attention even as she began bleeding. By the time she was finally taken to a hospital, she had miscarried.

It’s a tragedy no matter where you stand on immigration.

It is also a reminder of what happens when enforcement policy pulls in ordinary people — people with no violent histories, no threats to public safety — and places them into harsh, overcrowded conditions.

The Bigger Picture

Since Trump returned to office in 2025, ICE has dramatically escalated arrests of non-criminal immigrants, even beyond the levels seen in 2017. According to the Cato Institute, arrests of non-criminal immigrants have risen more than 1,100%compared to the beginning of Trump’s first term.

• About two-thirds of people detained have no criminal convictions.

• Over 93% have no violent record.

This is a policy of pursuing the easiest targets, not necessarily the most dangerous. Many of those picked up were following the immigration system’s own requirements — checking in regularly, reporting their locations, working toward legal status. These are not the people most Americans believe should be prioritized for detention.

Yet they are the ones filling up the beds in detention centers, creating dangerous overcrowding and stretching medical care to the breaking point.

Meanwhile, the immigration courts remain hopelessly backlogged, leaving people stuck for months or even years in stressful, unhealthy detention. Without serious reform to reduce court delays, no amount of oversight alone will fix this.

Why It Should Matter

No pregnant woman should fear losing her baby because she was placed in a government facility.

Iris Monterroso’s story crosses every line of decency. She wanted her baby. She was trying to comply with the system. Yet she was ignored, neglected, and left to lose her pregnancy while in government custody.

This should move every one of us. Whether you see yourself as Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or somewhere in between, there is a basic principle at stake: human dignity. It should not depend on immigration status.

No one should lose a pregnancy because of neglect in U.S. custody. No child should be lost this way.

What Needs to Change

Oversight of ICE facilities is vital. Congress must step up its inspections, demand transparency, and hold agencies accountable.

But that is only the beginning. Congress must also fix the overwhelmed immigration court system and direct ICE to focus its resources on genuine public-safety threats — not on parents, working people, or others who pose no harm.

This is not about “open borders.” It is about smart, fair priorities and ensuring taxpayer dollars go toward real threats, not the easy-to-catch targets that make families suffer while criminals walk free.

Oversight, immigration court reform, and smarter enforcement priorities — together — are what it will take to prevent tragedies like Iris’s.

Iris Monterroso deserved better. Her baby deserved better. And our country can do better.

Congress must act.

---

Sources

https://nashvillebanner.com/2025/05/27/iris-monterroso-pregnancy-loss/

https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-arresting-1100-percent-more-noncriminals-streets-2017

https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-no-convictions-93-no-violent-convictions

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/21/texas-family-detention-adults-kids-fighting/

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/05/nx-s1-5413364/concerns-over-conditions-in-u-s-immigration-detention-were-hearing-the-word-starving

https://www.vera.org/news/the-truth-about-immigration-detention-in-the-united-states

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/immigration-customs-enforcement-congressional-oversight-facility-conditions/

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/as-communities-mobilize-against-increasing-ice-abuses-members-of-congress-must-fulfill-their-responsibility-to-conduct-oversight-of-immigration-detention

‘No Kings’ Isn’t a Gotcha

Looking back at fear, freedom, and what we were really fighting for

You may have seen a viral post making the rounds recently. It reads like this:

No kings, but put your mask on.
No kings, but lock us down.
No kings, but I’m firing you for not vaccinating.
No kings, but you can’t go outside.
…but you need 12,380 boosters.
…but you can’t worship the REAL King.
…but you’re responsible for my health.
…but no family gatherings over 10.

It’s meant to expose what some see as a contradiction: that people who claim to oppose authoritarianism were too comfortable with government control during the pandemic. And let’s be honest—many of us did feel powerless at times, confused, even angry. The rules changed quickly. Our routines were disrupted. Our sense of control was shaken. That frustration is real, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

But that post—and others like it—draw the wrong conclusion. It treats “No Kings” as a punchline, not a principle. It frames democratic decision-making during a crisis as the same thing as tyranny. And that’s where we need to pause, step back, and take a closer look at what “No Kings” actually means.

No Kings Doesn’t Mean “No Rules”

At its core, “No Kings” is about opposing unchecked, absolute power. It doesn’t mean no one ever tells you what to do. It means no one person decides everything for everyone.

In a monarchy, power is centralized in one figure. There are no votes. No accountability. No appeals. No participation.

In a democracy, even under strain, decision-making is distributed—among elected officials, public health agencies, school boards, local governments, and yes, even private businesses. The pandemic created pressure, urgency, and sometimes confusion. But the power was still divided. The decisions were still debated. And the people still had recourse.

If you disagreed with a rule, you could protest. People did.
If you thought a mandate went too far, you could sue. People did.
If you didn’t like how your leaders handled it, you could vote them out. People did that too.

That’s not tyranny. That’s democracy under pressure—still functioning, still flawed, but still ours.

You Had a Say. You Still Do.

That’s the key difference. In a real monarchy, you don’t get a say. There are no protests without punishment. No courts to appeal to. No elections to change the course.

But in our system—even when the stakes are high—you still have power. You may not get your way every time. No one does. But you are part of the system that shapes the rules.

That’s what “No Kings” is supposed to mean: that no one person gets to rule over you without limits or consequences.

And if our idea of freedom can’t coexist with shared responsibility, maybe what we’re calling freedom isn’t really that at all.

Some of This Wasn’t Even the Government

Another important piece often left out of the conversation: not all the frustrations people faced during the pandemic came from the government.

A lot of mandates and restrictions came from private companies—firings, customer policies, event rules, travel protocols. That’s not federal overreach. That’s private actors making decisions within a capitalist system that already gives them enormous latitude.

That doesn’t make it feel any better—but it does change the accountability equation.

If you’re angry about how much influence corporations have over your life, you’re not alone. That’s a conversation we should absolutely be having. But let’s not confuse that with democratic governance. In many cases, government was the only thing limiting corporate overreach, not causing it.

The Irony: Be Careful What We Call “Freedom”

Here’s what gives me pause: some of the loudest critics of the “No Kings” message today are cheering for a political figure who says things like:

• “I alone can fix it.”

• “I will be your retribution.”

• “If you come after me, I come after you.”

These aren’t the words of someone who believes in checks and balances. That’s not local control. That’s not collaborative governance. It’s unilateral power with vengeance attached.

And if we’re going to oppose kings, that opposition has to be consistent. It has to apply even when the would-be king shares your values—or your enemies.

Because history has shown us over and over: concentrated power never stays friendly for long.

What “No Kings” Really Means

So what does it really mean to say “No Kings”?

It means:

• No one person drags us into war.

• No one person jails us without trial.

• No one person decides what we believe, say, or do.

• No one person uses the machinery of government to punish dissent.

It doesn’t mean we always agree. It doesn’t mean the system always gets it right.

But it means we decide—together. Through law. Through debate. Through elections. Through systems designed to correct course, not cement control.

It’s slower. It’s messier. And in a crisis, it can feel frustrating.

But it’s not tyranny. It’s freedom with guardrails. And it’s worth protecting.

So yes:

No Kings.
Not then.
Not now.
Not from the left.
Not from the right.
Not from anyone.

The Real Cost of U.S. Wars by Party: 50-Year Breakdown

When politicians talk tough on foreign policy, it’s often framed as strength. But behind the patriotic rhetoric lies a more sobering truth: wars are expensive—devastatingly so.

Over the past 50 years, U.S. presidents from both major parties have initiated military operations abroad. But when we follow the money, a clear pattern emerges.

Republican administrations have consistently initiated more expensive conflicts—by trillions of dollars.

We examined the long-term costs of major armed conflicts started under Republican versus Democratic leadership. This includes not only direct military spending, but also long-term care for veterans, reconstruction efforts, and the interest accrued on war-related debt.

The Cost Breakdown

Conflict	President	Party	Estimated Long-Term Cost (2024 USD)
Iraq War (2003–)	George W. Bush	Republican	$2.5–3.0 trillion
Afghanistan War (2001–2021)	George W. Bush	Republican	$2.3 trillion
Gulf War (1990–1991)	George H. W. Bush	Republican	$30 billion
Panama Invasion (1989)	George H. W. Bush	Republican	$1–2 billion
Grenada Invasion (1983)	Ronald Reagan	Republican	$130 million
Lebanon Deployment (1982–1984)	Ronald Reagan	Republican	~$2 billion
Libya Air Campaign (2011)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$1.1 billion
Syria/ISIS Operations (2014–)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$40–50 billion
Kosovo War (1999)	Bill Clinton	Democrat	$5–10 billion
Bosnia Intervention (1995)	Bill Clinton	Democrat	~$5 billion
Drone Campaigns (2009–2017)	Barack Obama	Democrat	$10–20 billion

Estimated totals

• Republican-initiated conflicts: $4.8 to $5.5 trillion

• Democratic-initiated conflicts: $60 to $85 billion

Why It Matters

War doesn’t just cost lives—it also drains national resources that could otherwise be invested in healthcare, education, infrastructure, or debt reduction. These long-term financial commitments often extend for decades, long after the troops come home and the headlines fade.

Despite common narratives that portray Democrats as weaker on defense or Republicans as more fiscally responsible, the historical record tells a different story.

Final Thought

Before accepting any argument that equates military aggression with leadership, it’s worth asking: Who actually pays for these wars? Because the people making the decisions often aren’t the ones footing the bill—or living with the consequences.

Theater of Cruelty: Why the Administration’s Immigration Crackdown Solves Nothing

The current administration wants you to believe it’s tough on immigration. They want headlines filled with arrests, detentions, and deportations. They want to project an image of control. But what they’re offering isn’t immigration policy — it’s political theater. It’s expensive, cruel, and completely detached from the root causes of the immigration challenges we actually face.

Let’s break this down.

Arrests Without Judges, Oversight, or Urgency

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is picking people up on administrative warrants — not criminal ones signed by a judge, but internal paperwork signed by ICE itself. There’s no immediate legal oversight, no court sign-off. In many cases, the people detained won’t see a judge for months or even years, because our immigration court system is so overwhelmed.

This would be like getting pulled over for allegedly speeding, then being jailed indefinitely without seeing a judge — all because a DMV official filled out a form.

Aggressive Tactics for Minor Infractions

Reports show ICE deploying militarized raids, midnight arrests, and detaining individuals for nothing more than civil infractions—expired visas, missed paperwork, or routine check-ins. In many cases, these actions are taken against people with pending asylum applications or Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—not violent criminals. One Los Angeles “military-style” operation resulted in over 40 arrests and was described by advocates as an “oppressive and vile paramilitary operation,” targeting nonviolent individuals in their homes or neighborhoods.

Immigration courts are no longer safe havens either: ICE has been arresting asylum-seekers in courthouse hallways, immediately following hearings or check-ins—even when a person has complied with all legal requirements. According to The Guardian, there were over 1,400 arrests at check-ins in the first month of the new term, mostly targeting individuals with no criminal history.

This isn’t targeted enforcement—it’s intimidation masquerading as policy, wielded against nonviolent, law‑abiding residents.

Due Process Denied

When people are deported — or detained for indefinite periods — without access to a timely hearing, that’s a due process failure. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say “except for immigrants.” Everyone in this country is entitled to basic procedural fairness, especially when what’s at stake is a person’s freedom or life.

Instead, we have people being sent back to countries they fled from — without having their case properly heard. Or worse, we keep them locked in overcrowded detention centers for years while their case languishes in a backlog.

Congress Kept in the Dark

What’s happening inside those detention centers? It’s hard to say. Lawmakers have reported being denied access or limited to sanitized tours — in direct conflict with Congress’s oversight authority. In fact, the DHS recently imposed a new policy requiring 72 hours advance notice for visits to ICE facilities and explicitly reserving ICE’s “sole and unreviewable discretion” to deny, cancel, or reschedule visits—even when federal law guarantees unannounced access for oversight purposes. Critics argue this is a transparent attempt to shroud detention conditions in secrecy.

If there’s nothing to hide, why the secrecy?

Root Causes Ignored

Here’s what’s really happening: the current surge in migrants isn’t due to lawlessness. It’s due to failed states, violence, climate change, and economic collapse in parts of Central America and beyond. People are not “invading” — they’re fleeing. The U.S. system used to recognize this through legal protections like asylum and TPS.

But instead of investing in solutions — faster asylum hearings, more judges, legal representation, and regional diplomacy — the administration has chosen to invest in fear. Fear looks good on campaign ads, but it doesn’t solve the crisis. It just manufactures cruelty.

A Broken System Doesn’t Need More Punishment — It Needs Reform

Imagine this:

You’re accused of a traffic violation — let’s say going 10 MPH over the speed limit. But instead of getting a court date in a few weeks, you’re arrested on the spot. Then you’re told it’ll take 5 years to resolve your case because the courts are backed up. During that time, you sit in a crowded jail, even if you have a spotless record. You never get a trial. You can’t appeal. You might be sent somewhere you don’t know, without seeing a lawyer or judge at all.

That’s what’s happening right now — just swap the traffic court for immigration court.

We Need a Real Fix

We don’t need more agents, more raids, or more detention centers. We need judges, caseworkers, legal aid, and sensible timelines. We need a functional, humane immigration system — one that recognizes the difference between a paperwork violation and a criminal threat. One that lives up to America’s promise of fairness and due process.

What we’re doing now isn’t solving the problem — it’s just turning people’s lives into props for a political show.

If we truly care about justice, safety, and human dignity, we must stop treating immigration as a stage for cruelty — and start building a system that works.

It’s time to bring the curtain down and do some real work.

An Open Letter to Federal Agents: A Call to Conscience

To the agents of Homeland Security, ICE, and all others tasked with enforcing the laws of this nation:

You signed up to serve your country. You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States—not to obey a man, a party, or a political movement, but to defend the principles that have guided our republic since its founding. That responsibility comes with power, and that power demands accountability. In that spirit, I offer the following:

Don’t Hide Your Face

If you’re carrying out lawful orders in accordance with the Constitution, then you should have nothing to hide. In a democratic society, anonymity in enforcement is a red flag—not a badge of honor. Citizens have the right to know who is detaining them, questioning them, or searching their homes. If you obscure your identity, you erode public trust and make it harder for people to tell the difference between lawful authority and unlawful aggression.

Think for Yourself

It is not enough to follow orders. The law is not a shield for immoral action. You must know it, question it, and apply it judiciously. Study the Constitution. Read case law on unlawful orders and how to resist them within your chain of command. Learn how others before you—military and civilian alike—have stood firm in defense of principle when asked to do something wrong. History doesn’t look kindly on those who abdicate their conscience.

Treat Civilians with Respect

Your authority ends where someone else’s rights begin. The people you encounter may not know the law like you do. They may be scared or confused. But most are not your enemy—they are citizens, neighbors, or simply human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity. When you conduct yourself professionally, when you clearly identify yourself and your purpose, you help uphold the law. When you don’t, you undermine it. Ask yourself: if a group of unidentified men approached your family with weapons and refused to explain why—how would you respond?

Use Force Only as a Last Resort

You carry weapons. That is not a privilege—it is a grave responsibility. The power to detain, restrain, or harm another human being should never be exercised lightly or reflexively. De-escalation is not weakness; it is professionalism. Violence should always be the last resort, never the first instinct.

Every act of force you use is a message: to the person it’s used against, to the community that witnesses it, and to the country that you serve. That message should never be one of domination—it should be one of necessity, restraint, and accountability. Anything else diminishes the very rule of law you’re sworn to uphold.

Read the Constitution.
Read the Declaration of Independence.

Don’t just memorize the parts you’re told matter. Understand why these documents were written in the first place. Understand the grievances that led to their creation, the abuses they sought to prevent, and the balance of powers they enshrine. Remember: we were founded by people who resisted government overreach. The rule of law only survives when those who enforce it know where the line is—and refuse to cross it.

You are not just agents of the state. You are agents of the people. The Constitution needs guardians. Be one.

Further Reading and Resources

On Constitutional Rights and Civic Responsibility:

• U.S. Constitution (National Archives)

• Declaration of Independence (National Archives)

• Interactive Constitution (National Constitution Center)

On Lawful Orders and Accountability:

• Cornell Legal Information Institute – Search for relevant federal laws and legal commentary.

On De-escalation and Use of Force:

• NIJ: Use of Force Continuum

On Professional Conduct and Civilian Interaction:

• DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

• The Marshall Project

Whistleblower Aid

• Whistleblower Aid

No Kings

I’ve been struggling this past week to figure out what to write.

The immigration raids in Los Angeles. The protests that followed. The President sending in the National Guard — and then the Marines — to suppress what were, in large part, peaceful demonstrations. The political assassinations in Minnesota. The growing wave of “No Kings” rallies across the country.

It’s a lot.

Each of these events is heavy on its own, but together they form a storm of chaos and fear. And in trying to process it all, I keep returning to one underlying theme: there’s so much focus on what we’re against — but not enough on what we’re for.

This, more than anything, is the legacy of the conservative/MAGA movement and the opposition to it. Not policy or vision. Not even ideology, really. Just relentless opposition. It’s a politics of negation — built on grievance, resentment, and fear of change. What we get is a steady drumbeat of “Not That,” “Not Them,” and “Never This.”

But let’s be honest: they’re not the only ones guilty of this.

Across the political spectrum, our messages have started to mirror one another in tone — even if not in content. Our political climate has become a series of competing “anti” messages. “Not fascism,” “Not socialism,” “Not the establishment,” “Not the radicals,” “Not the elites.” Everyone is fighting against something. But who’s offering a real vision of what comes next?

Where is the leadership that shows us a future to move toward — not just more things to fear?

It’s not that people don’t care. It’s that everything around us — the algorithms, the cable news cycles, the clickbait headlines — is designed to amplify conflict, not resolution. To reward outrage, not understanding. To push virality, not vision.

In this environment, it’s easier to rally energy against something than to build momentum toward something. And that’s a problem — because if all we do is resist, we stay locked in place. Or worse, we spin in circles. We become like a fish flopping on the deck, reacting to every splash but moving nowhere.

At some point, we have to stop asking what we’re fighting against and start asking what we’re fighting for.

We need to find each other. Build bridges. Not in some vague, idealistic sense, but in a real, hard, uncomfortable way. We need to talk about where we’re going — together — because there is no going back. That’s a myth. The only path is forward.

And that path needs to be shaped by us — the people who still believe in democracy, dignity, and shared responsibility. People who believe we are all better off when we’re all better off. People who believe that “No Kings” doesn’t just mean resisting authoritarian power — it means rejecting the idea that any one person, party, or movement has all the answers.

“No Kings” means we govern ourselves. Together.

And that means it’s on us to define the future we want to live in — and then fight like hell to build it.

Two Fathers

A Reflection on Father’s Day and the Role of Government

Today is Father’s Day here in the United States — a moment to honor the men who raise, teach, and guide us. But it’s also an opportunity to reflect more broadly on what it means to lead, to care, and to nurture growth.

I want to offer a contrast between two very different kinds of fathers.

The first is a father who restricts. He tells his children what not to do. He lays down rules without explanation, limits their choices, and scolds them when they misstep. His love might be present, but it’s conditional and often cloaked in fear or shame. His children may obey, but they do so out of compliance, not understanding.

The second is a father who teaches. He explains why things are the way they are. He gives his children the freedom to make their own choices — and when they stumble, he’s there to help them learn from the experience. His love is steady and patient. Mistakes aren’t punished; they’re seen as necessary steps in the process of becoming wiser, stronger, more independent.

Now, imagine applying that contrast to something bigger: our country.

What kind of “father” is the United States?

Of course, this analogy isn’t perfect — a nation isn’t a parent, and citizens aren’t children. But the metaphor is still useful, especially when we consider how government functions in our daily lives. There are times when our policies, laws, and leadership resemble that first kind of father: controlling, punitive, suspicious of freedom. And there are times when we move toward the second: empowering, supportive, invested in helping people thrive, not just obey.

Some may bristle at the idea of thinking about a country in personal or familial terms. For many, government feels like an impersonal machine — bureaucratic, distant, and slow. But in a democracy like ours, that perception misses the point. Our system of government begins with three simple words: We the People.

We are not separate from the government — we are the government. Every law, every regulation, every program is a reflection of what we choose to value as a society. It’s how we decide to live together, to take care of each other, and to chart a path forward.

So on this Father’s Day, as we think about what it means to guide, support, and lead — let’s also ask what kind of country we want to be. Do we want a government that limits out of fear? Or one that empowers out of trust and compassion?

As with parenting, the answer will shape not just who we are today — but who we become tomorrow.

De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.

Today’s Edition Newsletter

There is much to discuss regarding Trump's illegal and unconstitutional order nationalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests in Los Angeles. I will not attempt to summarize breaking news. Instead, I will focus on the question, “What should we do?”

My answer: De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.

“We All Are Going to Die”: Cruelty and the Gospel According to Joni Ernst

At a town hall this week in Parkersburg, Iowa, Senator Joni Ernst offered a response so callous it instantly went viral. Confronted by a constituent worried about Medicaid cuts in the GOP’s latest budget proposal, Ernst brushed it off with a smile and a shrug: “Well, we all are going to die.”

The room groaned.

That moment wasn’t just insensitive—it was revealing. It captured the flippant cruelty at the heart of the Republican Party’s so-called “big, beautiful” budget bill. And it highlighted how far removed today’s GOP is from both fiscal honesty and the values they so often claim to uphold—particularly when they wrap themselves in the language of Christianity.

The False Premise: Medicaid and Immigrants

Ernst, like other Republicans, tried to justify the cuts by claiming they only target people who aren’t eligible for Medicaid—especially undocumented immigrants. She parroted the number “1.4 million” as if millions of “illegals” are fraudulently draining the system.

Here’s the truth: undocumented immigrants are already barred from accessing full Medicaid. They’re only eligible for Emergency Medicaid—coverage that helps someone in life-threatening situations like childbirth or trauma, and only if they meet strict income limits. Emergency Medicaid accounts for less than 1% of the program’s total spending.

That “1.4 million” figure? There’s no reliable source backing it up. And even if fraud were happening at that scale (it’s not), uncovering it would require a larger budget and more oversight staff—not less.

This isn’t about rooting out fraud. It’s about justifying the unjustifiable: cutting healthcare from people who need it and can’t afford it.

The Real Impact: Kicking People While They’re Down

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the GOP’s Medicaid proposal could strip health coverage from up to 8.6 million people over the next decade. That includes:

• Low-income families

• Elderly Americans in nursing homes

• People with disabilities

• Working-class folks who earn too much for traditional Medicaid but can’t afford private insurance

These aren’t people abusing the system. They are the system—exactly the people Medicaid was designed to protect. But instead of helping them, this budget proposes we sacrifice their well-being to give more tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy and the corporations already hoarding record profits.

It’s Robin Hood in reverse. It’s cruelty by design.

The Gospel According to Joni Ernst

The kicker came after the town hall, Ernst posted a video on social media, filmed in a cemetery, where she offered a sarcastic apology and suggested that those concerned about mortality should “embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ”.

Seriously.

This is the same Jesus who healed lepers and the poor for free. The same Jesus who said, “Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me.” The same Jesus who flipped tables over financial exploitation in the temple and told a rich man to give away everything to follow him.

Jesus didn’t cut Medicaid. Jesus was Medicaid.

Quoting scripture while pushing policies that punish the poor isn’t just bad policy—it’s spiritual malpractice. If Ernst and her colleagues want to invoke Christianity, they might start by actually reading what Jesus said about money, justice, and mercy.

Moral Clarity in a Time of Deception

This isn’t just about one senator, or even one party. It’s about a broader pattern of politicians using faith as camouflage for policies that are deeply anti-Christian—and anti-human.

We should call it what it is: a betrayal of the values they claim to hold.

The truth is, budgets are moral documents. They reveal what we value and who we’re willing to leave behind. And if this budget passes, millions will suffer so that billionaires can keep stacking wealth they’ll never use.

We don’t need hollow platitudes. We need compassion. We need truth. And we need leaders who understand that public service is about serving the public.

Because if “we’re all going to die” is the best defense our leaders can offer for stripping healthcare from the poor—then it’s time for new leaders.

Court Limits Trump’s Tariff Powers Under IEEPA

Today (28 May 2025), the U.S. Court of International Trade made a big decision: it ruled that President Trump went too far when he used emergency powers to impose broad tariffs on imports from around the world.

This is a major development for anyone watching how U.S. trade policy works—or doesn’t—and it puts real limits on what a president can do without Congress.

A Quick Reminder: What’s IEEPA?

In case you missed it, we recently covered the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in this earlier post. IEEPA was passed in 1977 to give presidents tools to respond to national emergencies involving foreign threats—mostly by freezing assets or blocking trade with specific countries. But it wasn’t meant to be a blank check.

What the Court Said

The Trump administration had used IEEPA to put tariffs on a wide range of goods from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. The justification? That the U.S. trade deficit was a national emergency.

But the Court wasn’t buying it.

“The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country’s trade policy dependent on his whims.”
— AP News

In short, the Court ruled that IEEPA doesn’t let the president slap tariffs on whoever he wants just by declaring a trade emergency. That kind of decision belongs to Congress.

You can also read more from Axios and the Wall Street Journal if you want additional context.

Here’s what this Ruling Means

• The tariffs are struck down — Imports affected by Trump’s emergency tariffs are no longer subject to those extra costs.

• Trade deals may be shaken up — Negotiations with countries like the UK and China could be impacted since those tariffs are now off the table.

• Presidents can’t go it alone — The Court made it clear that major trade decisions need input from Congress, not just a presidential proclamation.

What Happens Now?

The Trump team is likely to appeal, and this could eventually end up at the Supreme Court. But for now, it’s a big win for those who believe in checks and balances.

Update

As of 29 May 2025, this ruling was appealed and there is a temporary stay leaving the tariffs in place. Parties have until June 5th to respond.

“The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t say anything at all about tariffs,” Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, told Al Jazeera.

Fein added that there is a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs in the event of a national emergency. However, he said, it requires a study by the commerce secretary and can only be imposed on a product-by-product basis.

Why It Matters

This ruling isn’t just about trade. It’s about the limits of executive power. IEEPA was never meant to give any president a free hand to reshape the global economy. This decision reminds us that even emergency powers have boundaries.

Undermining Justice: A Hidden Threat in the “Big Beautiful Bill”

You probably didn’t hear about it. That’s by design.

Tucked into the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” — a sprawling legislative package being pushed with Trump-era flair — is a provision that sounds technical but carries enormous consequences. If passed, it would undermine one of the judiciary’s most basic tools: the power to hold someone in contempt of court.

That might not sound like front-page news. But if you’re someone who believes in accountability, law and order, or the idea that no one is above the law — this should stop you cold.

What Is Contempt of Court?

At its core, contempt of court is how judges enforce their rulings. It’s what allows a judge to say, “You will comply with this subpoena,” and make it stick.

There are two main kinds:

• Civil contempt: Used to compel compliance — for instance, when someone refuses to testify or won’t pay court-ordered child support.

• Criminal contempt: Used to punish behavior that disrespects or obstructs the court itself.

This power isn’t just about courtroom drama. It’s how courts maintain authority, protect citizens, and ensure justice is more than a polite suggestion.

What the Bill Would Do

The clause in question — buried deep in the text — aims to strip judges of the power to enforce certain orders through contempt, particularly in cases involving government officials or political actors.

The language is murky, but the goal is clear: make it harder for courts to hold powerful people accountable, especially if they’re aligned with the bill’s backers.

If someone ignores a lawful subpoena? Shrugs off a court order? Under this provision, a judge might be forced to let it slide.

Why This Is a Red Flag — for Everyone

This isn’t just about legal procedure. It’s about power.

Attacking the court’s ability to enforce its own rulings undermines the rule of law itself. It’s a classic authoritarian tactic: hollow out the independent judiciary so that the powerful don’t have to answer to it.

History offers plenty of cautionary tales. In countries where courts lost their teeth, corruption exploded. Accountability vanished. And ordinary people — the ones without lobbyists, lawyers, or political connections — paid the price.

If this clause becomes law, it won’t just shield corrupt officials from subpoenas. It could affect workers trying to get unpaid wages, parents seeking custody enforcement, or small businesses trying to collect on contracts. Anyone who relies on the courts for fairness could be left powerless.

This Isn’t Just a Liberal Concern

If you believe in checks and balances, this matters.

If you believe in law and order, this matters.

If you believe that judges — not politicians — should decide what happens in a courtroom, this matters.

This isn’t about Trump, or Biden, or left vs. right. It’s about whether courts still mean something in this country. And whether our system still works when powerful people say “no” to accountability.

What You Can Do

This clause won’t make headlines — but it should. The more quietly it passes, the more damage it will do. So speak up.

• Call your representative. Ask them where they stand on judicial contempt powers. Demand transparency.

• Share this story. Most people haven’t heard about it — and that’s no accident.

• Pay attention. This won’t be the last attempt to weaken the rule of law. But it could be the one that breaks it.

Laws are only as strong as the courts that enforce them. Strip away that power, and what you have isn’t justice — it’s theater. And the curtain is rising.

Key Resources

• Full Text of H.R.1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act

• Section 70302 – Restriction of Funds

• Representative Laura Friedman’s Letter Opposing Section 70302

• Campaign Legal Center’s Analysis of Hidden Provisions

How Government Money Really Works — And What Most People Get Wrong About Taxes and the Budget

The Big Misunderstanding About Money

At some point in our lives, most of us absorb a simple, commonsense idea: money is limited. You earn it, you spend it, you try to save some. If you spend more than you bring in, you go into debt — and if that debt piles up, there are consequences. That’s how households work, how businesses work, and how most state and local governments work too.

So it seems logical to assume the federal government must play by the same rules. If there’s a budget deficit, it must mean the government is spending beyond its means. If we want better schools, safer roads, or stronger healthcare, then we either need to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else. That’s just basic math, right?

Well — not exactly.

This familiar story about government money is tidy, intuitive, and deeply wrong.

The truth is that the federal government doesn’t operate like a household or a business. It’s not just one more player in the economy — it’s the referee, the scoreboard, and the person printing the tickets at the front gate. Unlike the rest of us, the U.S. government creates the money it spends. It doesn’t need to “raise revenue” before it can afford something. It spends first, and taxes later.

That idea might sound a little out there at first. If the government can just create money, why doesn’t it solve everything? Why are there still potholes, overcrowded classrooms, understaffed hospitals, and families living paycheck to paycheck? Why is there always talk of deficits and debt ceilings if those things don’t really constrain us?

This post is here to pull back the curtain.

We’re going to explore how government money actually works in a modern economy — how it enters the system, how it flows, and most importantly, how it sometimes gets stuck. We’ll dig into the real purpose of taxation, and why the most dangerous kind of money in our economy isn’t money that’s being spent — it’s the money that isn’t going anywhere at all.

This isn’t about party politics or economic theory. It’s about understanding the machine we all live inside — and why it so often feels like it’s broken, even when there’s more wealth in circulation than ever before.

If you’ve ever wondered:

• Why we always seem to “run out of money” for public goods…

• Why billionaires can accumulate fortunes beyond imagination while others struggle to afford insulin…

• Or why inflation rises even when wages don’t…

…then this post is for you.

By the end, you’ll see money — and taxes — in a very different light.

The Government Isn’t Like a Household Budget

The idea that governments need to “live within their means” is one of the most persistent beliefs in public life. You’ll hear it from politicians on both sides of the aisle, in news segments, campaign speeches, and budget debates: We can’t spend what we don’t have. We need to tighten our belts. Just like families do.

It sounds responsible. Humble, even. And it gives the impression that government finances are just a scaled-up version of our own — a bigger checking account, a more complicated spreadsheet, but ultimately the same rules.

But here’s the thing: that’s not how a currency-issuing government works. Not even close.

The federal government of the United States is not a household. It doesn’t need to earn money in order to spend it. It doesn’t need to borrow dollars before it can invest in a new bridge, fund research, or pay a soldier. Why? Because it creates the money to begin with.

Think about that for a second. The U.S. dollar doesn’t fall from the sky, and it doesn’t originate in taxpayer wallets. It’s created by the federal government, usually through the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, when Congress authorizes spending. That money enters the economy when the government pays for goods, services, salaries, or benefits — and only after that do taxes start pulling some of it back out.

It’s a bit like the way a casino works. The house creates the chips. It doesn’t need to “earn” them first. The chips flow out onto the floor when people buy in, and the house collects them back as games are played. The casino’s ability to issue more chips is not constrained by how many it collected from players yesterday — it’s constrained only by what the system can handle before things get out of balance.

In the same way, the federal government’s real constraint is not money, but resources. The number of people available to work. The amount of steel, concrete, bandwidth, energy. The capacity of factories and farms and freight trains. If the government spends too much money into an economy that doesn’t have the capacity to absorb it — meaning, too much money chasing too few goods — then you get inflation. That’s the real limit. Not a bank balance.

This is where a lot of confusion starts to clear. Because when you realize the government doesn’t need to collect taxes before it can spend, you start to ask new questions — like why the government still cuts back during times of need, or why it borrows money it doesn’t technically require. You also start to see why taxation matters, even if it’s not “funding” spending directly. We’ll get into all of that shortly.

But for now, the key point is this: the U.S. government is the source of the dollar. It can never run out. It can never go bankrupt in its own currency. It can’t default unless it chooses to. That doesn’t mean it can or should spend without limits. But it does mean we need to stop pretending that government budgeting is just a bigger version of our own household finances.

How Banks Create Money — and Why Debt Isn’t Just Borrowing From the Future

When most of us think of money, we picture something finite — like coins in a jar or bills in a register. It’s easy to imagine there’s a set amount out there in the world, being passed from person to person. But in reality, most money isn’t printed by the government or minted by the Treasury. It’s created by banks — and it’s created out of debt.

Here’s how it works: when you take out a mortgage, a car loan, or swipe your credit card, the bank doesn’t hand you someone else’s deposited money. It simply creates the money by typing it into your account. That loan becomes new money in the economy. And when you pay it back — with interest — the bank removes that money from circulation.

This process happens millions of times a day across the economy. A business borrows to buy new equipment. A student takes out a loan for tuition. A family finances a new roof. All of these actions create money in the short term. In fact, somewhere around 90–95% of the money supply exists not as cash or coins, but as digital entries born from private bank loans.

In this way, debt isn’t just a tool for consumers and companies — it’s the engine that drives most of the money creation in a modern capitalist economy.

But there’s a catch.

Debt-based money always comes with strings attached. It has to be repaid — with interest. And if too much borrowing happens at once, it can fuel bubbles, inflate prices, and saddle people with repayments that siphon off future income. On the other hand, when borrowing slows down — during recessions or periods of uncertainty — the amount of money being created also shrinks, and the economy can stall.

This is where the Federal Reserve comes in.

The Fed doesn’t create money the way Congress does — it doesn’t spend into the economy like the Treasury does. But it plays a crucial role in managing the flow of money by setting interest rates. When the Fed raises rates, borrowing becomes more expensive, which slows down new lending and cools the economy. When it lowers rates, loans get cheaper, encouraging people and businesses to borrow, invest, and spend.

What About Quantitative Easing (QE)?

You might’ve heard that during financial crises, the Federal Reserve “pumps money into the economy” through something called quantitative easing. That’s partly true — but not in the way most people think.

In QE, the Fed creates money to buy government bonds or other assets from large banks. This adds reserves to the banking system — kind of like topping off the fuel tank. But it doesn’t directly put money in your pocket or build a new school.

QE makes borrowing cheaper and asset prices higher, which can boost economic activity — but mostly by encouraging banks and investors to keep lending. It’s an indirect tool, and its effects tend to benefit Wall Street more than Main Street.

So yes, QE creates money — but it’s not the same kind of money creation you get from direct government spending or new loans to consumers and businesses. And like interest rates, QE can change the speed of money, but not its final destination.

Quantitative Tightening (QT) is the opposite.

In QT, the Fed sells assets (usually government bonds) or lets them expire without replacing them. This slowly pulls reserves out of the banking system. It’s not the same as taxing or deleting money directly, but it does tighten credit. Banks become more cautious, loans become more expensive, and money moves more slowly.

QT is one of the tools the Fed uses to fight inflation.

It works by making borrowing more expensive and reducing the money supply available for lending and speculation.

But here’s the catch:

QT mostly affects banks and investors. It doesn’t do much to remove stagnant wealth sitting in tax shelters or luxury assets. That’s why taxation is still necessary — it targets money that’s already stuck, not just money flowing through the pipes.

In essence, the Fed acts like a thermostat, adjusting the “temperature” of the economy by nudging the speed of money creation up or down. But here’s the important part: the Fed doesn’t actually remove money from the system. It doesn’t pull dollars out of circulation — it just influences how fast those dollars are created or destroyed by the banking sector.

Only taxation does that.

Taxes are the one tool that reliably drains money out of the economy. That’s why, even in a world where banks create money and the Fed adjusts interest rates, taxation remains essential. It’s how we prevent the financial system from overheating with too much credit — or from concentrating too much wealth in places where it stops moving altogether.

So while government spending and private borrowing both create money, they do it in different ways, with different tradeoffs. And when the private sector slows down — when people are maxed out on debt or reluctant to spend — it’s often the public sector that has to step in and keep the economy from grinding to a halt.

What Taxes Really Do

If the government can create its own money, and most new money comes from loans, that raises a natural question: why do we still need taxes at all?

This is where the story starts to shift.

Most people assume that we pay taxes so the government can afford to do things — fix roads, fund the military, send out Social Security checks. And at the local and state level, that’s largely true. Those governments are currency users. They have to balance their books just like households or businesses. But the federal government — the one that issues the U.S. dollar — doesn’t need your tax dollars before it can spend. It spends first, and taxes later.

So what’s the point of taxation if it’s not to “raise revenue”?

It turns out, taxes play a completely different — and much more important — role in keeping the economy healthy.

Taxes Control Inflation

When the government spends money into the economy, that money becomes part of the pool we all use to buy things. But if too much money builds up in that pool — especially when the economy can’t produce enough goods and services to meet demand — prices start to rise. That’s inflation.

Taxes act like a drain. They pull money out of the pool, reducing the total amount in circulation. This helps cool things down when demand starts to outpace supply. In this sense, taxation is a form of economic climate control — a way to maintain balance and avoid overheating.

Taxes Create Demand for the Currency

There’s a reason we all accept dollars, even though they’re just pieces of paper or entries in a database. It’s because we need dollars to pay our taxes.

The government doesn’t just create money — it also creates demand for that money. It does this by requiring that taxes be paid in U.S. dollars. That’s what gives the dollar value and ensures that people, businesses, and banks are all willing to accept it in exchange.

In this way, taxation isn’t just a money sink — it’s part of what gives money its usefulness.

Taxes Shape the Economy

Beyond managing supply and demand, taxes can guide behavior and shape society’s priorities. That’s why we tax cigarettes and give deductions for donations. Taxes can discourage pollution, support struggling communities, or promote investment in clean energy.

And perhaps most importantly, taxes can help address inequality. When wealth concentrates too much at the top, it tends to stagnate — we’ll get to that soon — and taxes can help redistribute it in ways that keep the economy moving.

So while taxes don’t “fund” spending the way we were taught, they’re still essential. They’re how we make room in the economy for public goods. They’re how we keep inflation in check. They’re how we make the dollar worth something in the first place. And they’re how we ensure the economy works for more than just the people who already have everything they need.

Without taxation, even a money-creating government would eventually hit a wall — not because it ran out of dollars, but because it overheated the engine.

The Problem with Stagnant Wealth

If you’ve made it this far, you now know something that turns conventional wisdom upside down: the government doesn’t need our money to spend, and taxes aren’t about “paying the bills.” Instead, taxes help manage inflation, create demand for currency, and keep the economy balanced and moving.

So that brings us to a deeper, more uncomfortable question:

If too much money in the system causes inflation, where exactly is that money piling up?

The short answer? At the top.

Over the last few decades, a staggering share of new wealth has gone not into public goods or productive investment, but into private fortunes — massive concentrations of money that sit relatively idle in financial portfolios, luxury real estate, stock buybacks, and offshore accounts. This isn’t money being spent on groceries or home repairs or small business expansion. It’s money that’s parked. Money that’s been extracted from the real economy and now lives almost entirely on spreadsheets.

This kind of money is what economists often call stagnant wealth. And it poses a growing threat to the health of the entire economy.

Stock Buybacks: Corporate Profits in a Holding Pattern

One of the clearest examples of stagnant wealth in action is the rise of stock buybacks — a financial maneuver that’s become almost routine among large corporations.

Here’s what happens: instead of using profits to raise wages, expand operations, or invest in research and development, many companies use their cash to buy back their own shares on the stock market. This reduces the number of shares in circulation, which usually boosts the stock price. Shareholders — especially major ones like executives and investment firms — see a windfall. And because so much executive compensation is tied to stock performance, buybacks often function as an indirect bonus system for top leadership.

But while stock prices go up, the real economy doesn’t necessarily benefit. No new jobs are created. No new products or services are introduced. No infrastructure is built. It’s a maneuver that moves money around without creating new value — and that’s the definition of stagnation.

Why This Matters:

Stock buybacks concentrate wealth at the top, not by making the economy more productive, but by manipulating financial optics. They redirect money that could be used to invest in workers, innovation, or communities — and instead lock it away in private portfolios where it rarely recirculates.

And this isn’t happening on the margins — it’s become central to how big business operates. In some years, companies in the S&P 500 have spent more on buybacks than on capital investment. That means the dominant use of corporate profits is not to build or grow — but to enrich those who already own the most.

Buybacks are just one example of how money can appear active but still contribute little to the broader economy. When paired with low taxes on capital, deregulation, and financial incentives that reward short-term stock performance over long-term growth, they create a system where money constantly floats upward — and then gets stuck.

Money That Moves vs. Money That Sits

In a healthy economy, money moves. It flows from paycheck to store to supplier to payroll to rent and back again. Every time money changes hands, it supports jobs, goods, services, and the taxes that fund public life.

But when money gets trapped — especially in large amounts — it stops doing its job. It doesn’t buy anything. It doesn’t build anything. It just sits.

And the more money gets stuck in those upper layers of the economy, the harder it becomes for that money to “trickle down” in any meaningful way. Because it doesn’t trickle. It pools.

Stagnation Is a Drain — Not a Sign of Success

One of the biggest myths we’ve been sold is that extreme wealth accumulation is a sign of merit or efficiency. But in reality, it’s often a sign of dysfunction — of a system that allows money to be siphoned upward faster than it can circulate outward.

Imagine if a town’s entire water supply started collecting in a single mansion’s pool, leaving the rest of the neighborhood with dry taps. That’s not prosperity. That’s hoarding.

And hoarding doesn’t just happen in corporate boardrooms or stock portfolios. Trillions of dollars in personal and corporate wealth are now parked in offshore tax shelters — hidden from taxation, untouched by commerce, and invisible to the real economy. This is money that could be funding schools, public transit, or clean energy — but instead, it’s legally shielded behind walls of secrecy, compounding interest for people who already have more than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes.

Then there’s real estate — not homes for living in, but high-end properties bought purely as investment vehicles. In many major cities, entire luxury apartment towers sit mostly empty, owned by global investors as safe places to park cash. These buildings don’t house families, create jobs, or generate much economic activity. They’re just vaults made of glass and steel.

In a money system like ours, where circulation matters more than accumulation, this kind of stagnation isn’t just inefficient — it’s a slow bleed. It keeps the economy running below its potential. It makes inequality worse. And it leaves more and more people wondering why — if there’s so much wealth in the world — everything still feels so hard.

Next, we’ll look at how taxation can play a powerful role — not as punishment, but as a way to restore balance. Because the problem isn’t that some people have too much money — it’s that too much money has stopped moving.

Why Taxing the Rich Helps Everyone

When people hear the phrase “tax the rich,” it often stirs up a mix of emotions — support, suspicion, even resentment. Some hear it as a call for fairness. Others hear it as punishment for success. And many, understandably, wonder how taking money from one group will make life better for everyone else.

So let’s set the record straight: taxing the wealthy isn’t about jealousy or revenge. It’s about function.

In an economy where too much money gets stuck at the top, taxation is how we get that money moving again — out of vaults and spreadsheets and back into the real world, where it can fund schools, rebuild roads, launch new businesses, and pay people to do useful, meaningful work. Taxing the rich doesn’t weaken the economy. It strengthens its foundation.

The Rich Are Different — Financially and Systemically

Let’s be clear: we’re not talking about someone making $200,000 a year and saving up for their kid’s college. We’re talking about the wealthiest 0.1% — people whose fortunes stretch into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. People whose wealth grows not from wages or productivity, but from investments, inheritance, and financial instruments most of us will never see.

And here’s the kicker: the ultra-wealthy often pay lower effective tax rates than teachers, nurses, and construction workers. That’s because most of their income comes from capital gains — the increase in value of stocks or assets — which is taxed at a lower rate than wages. Often, it’s not taxed at all until the asset is sold. In some cases, it’s never taxed, due to loopholes and tax shelters.

This isn’t about breaking the law — it’s about exploiting a system that was designed to reward accumulation over circulation.

A Dollar Hoarded vs. a Dollar Spent

A dollar parked in a Cayman Islands trust or sitting in a third vacation home does very little for the economy. A dollar spent on childcare, public transit, or small business loans creates multiple rounds of activity: wages paid, goods bought, taxes collected. It circulates. It builds.

That’s why taxing wealth at the top is so powerful. It doesn’t destroy value — it reactivates it.

It takes idle dollars and puts them to work.

Counterpoint: “But They Already Paid Taxes on That Money”

This is a common objection — and a fair-sounding one. But in reality, much of the wealth at the top has never been taxed. That includes:

• Unrealized capital gains (wealth increase without selling assets)

• Inherited assets that bypass taxes entirely due to “step-up in basis” rules

• Money shielded in trusts, shell companies, and offshore entities

And even when income is taxed, it’s often at far lower rates than regular wages. The average billionaire pays an estimated 8% effective tax rate. Many working families pay double that.

So no — this wealth isn’t being double-taxed. In many cases, it hasn’t been taxed once.

Counterpoint: “But They Give to Charity!”

It’s true: many wealthy people make large charitable donations. And that’s commendable. But charity is not a substitute for a functioning public system. Donations depend on the donor’s whims, not on public need. You can’t run a national infrastructure plan or universal preschool on the hope that a billionaire feels generous this year.

Taxes are how we make democratic, accountable decisions about what we build together — not what we’re gifted from above.

Taxing the Rich Helps… Everyone

When wealthy people pay more in taxes, it:

• Frees up money for infrastructure, healthcare, education, and climate resilience

• Reduces the burden on working- and middle-class families

• Helps stabilize the economy by discouraging dangerous speculation

• Restores trust that the system isn’t rigged for the top

And most importantly, it gives the economy the oxygen it needs to grow from the middle out — not just from the top down.

Next, we’ll explore how we can use tax policy not just to patch holes, but to actively improve the economy for everyone. Because once you understand that money is not the constraint — but stagnant wealth is — the path forward becomes clearer.

A Healthier Economy Through Smarter Taxation

So far, we’ve seen how money really works: how it’s created, how it flows, how it gets stuck — and how taxation isn’t about punishing success, but keeping the system moving. That brings us to the real challenge: what should we do about it?

Because if too much wealth is stagnating in unproductive places, then the goal isn’t to tear down prosperity — it’s to make sure prosperity works. Not just for the ultra-wealthy, but for the people who grow food, teach children, drive trucks, code software, build homes, and care for aging parents.

The good news? We already have the tools to fix this. The better news? They’re not radical. They’re rooted in common sense.

Tax Wealth, Not Just Work

Right now, most of our tax system falls on people who earn a paycheck — not people whose money makes money. That’s backwards.

If you go to work every day and get paid $60,000 a year, you might pay 20–30% in taxes. But if you make $10 million on the stock market and never sell your shares, you might pay nothing for years — or ever. That creates an economy where passive wealth is rewarded more than productive effort.

We can fix this by:

• Taxing large unrealized capital gains on billionaires

• Closing loopholes that let assets be inherited tax-free

• Implementing modest annual wealth taxes on ultra-high net worth individuals

These policies don’t hurt the middle class. They don’t touch retirement accounts. They simply ensure that the very top isn’t forever insulated from contributing.

Close the Escape Hatches

It’s no secret that many wealthy individuals and corporations go to extraordinary lengths to avoid taxes — setting up offshore shell companies, exploiting vague trust laws, or using high-priced accountants to manipulate taxable income.

The solution isn’t complicated. It’s enforcement.

Fully funding the IRS, modernizing its systems, and enforcing existing laws would generate hundreds of billions in recovered taxes — without raising rates a single point. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that every $1 spent on tax enforcement brings in up to $6 in revenue.

Tax fairness doesn’t require new laws so much as the political will to apply the ones we already have.

Invest Where the Market Won’t

There are some things the private sector simply won’t do on its own — even when they’re urgently needed. Affordable housing. Public health infrastructure. Clean energy grids. Universal broadband. These aren’t luxuries; they’re the foundation for a stable and competitive economy.

Smart taxation gives the government the room it needs to invest directly in these public goods — especially during downturns when private investment dries up. And when done well, these investments create jobs, lower costs, and raise living standards for everyone.

Build an Economy That Works for More People

Ultimately, the goal of tax policy — and economic policy as a whole — shouldn’t just be “growth.” It should be broadly shared prosperity. We need to stop asking whether the stock market is up, and start asking whether people are housed, healthy, educated, and hopeful.

A smarter tax system can:

• Fund universal childcare and paid family leave

• Rebuild decaying infrastructure and climate-proof cities

• Lower costs for healthcare and education

• Support small businesses and local economies

• Ensure that essential workers aren’t living in poverty while billionaires fund their fourth space launch

None of this is about envy. It’s about value. It’s about making sure the people who create value in society — not just those who accumulate assets — can thrive.

Next, we’ll bring it all together. Because once you understand how money works, how taxes work, and how wealth gets stuck, a very different picture of the economy emerges — one that points not toward scarcity, but toward possibility.

How National Debt Fits Into the Picture

At this point, you might be wondering: if the government doesn’t need tax revenue to spend, why does it bother borrowing at all? What’s the deal with the national debt?

Here’s the key: when the federal government spends more than it taxes — what we call a deficit — it creates money in the economy. That deficit becomes part of the national debt, which isn’t a pile of unpaid bills, but rather a ledger of dollars the government has spent and not yet removed via taxation.

Those dollars don’t disappear. They show up as Treasury bonds — safe, interest-bearing assets held by banks, pension funds, individuals, even foreign governments. In fact, much of the national debt is simply money the private sector saves. From this perspective, the debt isn’t a burden. It’s a financial asset.

What happens if the government tries to reduce the debt? It would need to run surpluses — taxing more than it spends — which effectively pulls money out of the economy. This can be appropriate in times of overheating or inflation, but harmful during slow growth or rising inequality.

In other words, debt and taxes are both tools. Debt injects money into the system. Taxes remove it. The goal isn’t to balance the federal checkbook like a household — it’s to balance the economy: fight inflation, reduce inequality, and make sure public resources are serving the public good.

Money Is a Tool, Not a Trophy

For most of us, money feels like the finish line — the reward for hard work, saving, and sacrifice. And that’s not wrong. But when we zoom out and look at the economy as a whole, we start to see money differently.

Money isn’t just a prize. It’s a tool. A shared resource. A current that flows through our lives, connecting what we do with what we need. And like water or electricity, it has to keep moving to be useful. When it stops flowing — when it pools in the hands of a few or gets locked away in untaxed assets and empty condos — the rest of the system dries up.

That’s what we’re living through now.

We’ve built an economy that’s awash in wealth, yet constantly running short on what matters: affordable housing, good jobs, healthy communities, and resilient infrastructure. Not because we lack the money — but because too much of it is stuck. Idle. Hoarded. Trapped in a game of high-stakes accumulation that adds little and destabilizes much.

And yet, we continue to treat money like it’s scarce. We cut school budgets while billionaires fund private space races. We hesitate to fix our bridges or expand healthcare because someone insists we can’t “afford it” — as if the only money that counts is the money we can squeeze out of working people.

But now we know better.

The government is not like a household. It creates money. It spends first and taxes later. Taxes don’t fund spending — they manage the flow. And the biggest problem we face today isn’t too much spending — it’s too much wealth sitting still.

The national debt fits into this framework too. It’s not a threat looming over future generations — it’s a reflection of past investment, and a source of private sector savings. When used wisely, deficits and debt expand the economy. When reined in too harshly, they can choke off recovery and growth.

Taxation isn’t theft. It’s maintenance. It’s how we drain excess, reroute resources, and keep the engine of the economy from stalling out under its own weight. When done right, taxation doesn’t slow the economy down — it unclogs it. It frees money to move again. It turns passive wealth into active progress.

So when we talk about taxes — especially taxes on the wealthy — we’re not talking about punishing success. We’re talking about protecting the system that made that success possible in the first place. We’re talking about pulling money off the sidelines and putting it back to work — building homes, hiring teachers, funding science, raising kids, and solving problems that markets alone will never fix.

In the end, the question isn’t can we afford to tax the rich.

It’s can we afford not to?

Addendum: The “Big Beautiful Bill” — A Deficit That Deepens Inequality

Some readers might ask: if deficits can be useful, does that mean any deficit is good?

Not quite. Like any tool, it depends on how you use it.

The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill” — a sweeping tax and spending package — dramatically increases the federal deficit. But unlike investments in infrastructure, education, or healthcare that broadly benefit society, this bill directs a significant portion of its benefits to the wealthiest Americans.

According to analyses by the Tax Policy Center, while more than 80% of households would receive a tax cut in 2026 under the bill, 60% of the tax cuts would go to the top 20% of households, and more than one-third would go to those making $460,000 or more.

In dollar terms, the average middle-class household earning between $51,000 and $92,999 could receive a projected tax cut of $815, whereas top 1% earners stand to gain significantly more—an estimated $44,190 in after-tax income.

This approach not only increases the national debt but also exacerbates wealth inequality by concentrating financial gains among the already affluent.

Deficits that fund broad-based investments—like schools, healthcare, and infrastructure—keep money moving.They create jobs, strengthen communities, and lay the foundation for long-term prosperity. These types of deficits tend to pay for themselves indirectly by boosting the productive capacity of the economy.

But deficits that primarily benefit the wealthy? They often lead to increased savings among the rich, reduced consumer spending, and greater economic disparity.

So while deficits aren’t inherently bad, deficits that deepen inequality are problematic. They not only strain public finances but also undermine the very purpose of taxation: to manage the economy’s flow of money and ensure a fair distribution of resources.

If we’re going to incur deficits, let’s ensure they’re used to lift people up—not to further enrich those already at the top.

Why Accepting a $400 Million Jet from Qatar Is a Bad Idea

The U.S. government just accepted a $400 million luxury jet from Qatar. It’s being pitched as a “gift” that could be used as a temporary Air Force One for Donald Trump. But this decision raises serious red flags.

Let’s break down why.

Security Concerns

This plane was built for a foreign government. Before any U.S. president can fly on it, the jet would need massive upgrades—everything from secure communication systems to defenses against electronic attacks. Experts estimate it could cost up to $1 billion just to make it secure enough to use.

Even then, some worry the plane could already be compromised. That’s not paranoia—that’s basic caution when it comes to transporting the president of the United States.

And let’s not forget “Signalgate”—when classified military information was accidentally shared in an unsecured group chat. That scandal showed this administration doesn’t always take security seriously. So should we trust them to vet and refit a jet from a foreign power?

Cost to Taxpayers

Sure, the plane was “free.” But turning it into Air Force One isn’t. All the upgrades and ongoing maintenance would come out of your pocket. And we’re already billions over budget on the new Air Force One project that was supposed to replace the current fleet.

This plane could become just another expensive distraction.

Legal and Ethical Red Flags

The Constitution says U.S. officials aren’t supposed to accept gifts from foreign governments without approval from Congress. The Pentagon claims all the rules were followed—but this kind of gift is unprecedented. It sets a troubling example: foreign governments giving massive gifts to U.S. leaders and getting what in return?

Trump’s Qatar Ties

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Several Trump allies have ties to Qatar. Attorney General Pam Bondi even worked as a registered foreign agent for Qatar before joining the administration.

So is this really just a helpful gift? Or is it part of a deeper relationship that deserves more scrutiny?

Bottom Line

The U.S. accepting this jet is not just about optics—it’s about security, ethics, and accountability. We need to ask hard questions:

• Why accept a foreign government’s jet?

• Who benefits?

• And who’s paying the price?

Sources:

1. Pentagon Says It Has Taken Possession of 747 From Qatar – Wall Street Journal

2. Trump’s Free Plane From Qatar Will Still Cost Taxpayers a Fortune – Daily Beast

3. Trump’s Qatar Air Force One Is a Security Nightmare – Business Insider

4. US Air Force Tasked With Modifying Qatar Boeing Jet – Business Insider

5. Pam Bondi’s Qatar Links Under Scrutiny – Newsweek

6. Qatari Soft Power Influence – Wikipedia

7. Signal Group Chat Breach Raises Security Concerns – NPR

8. Signal Leak Controversy – Wikipedia

What’s Really in the “Big Beautiful” Budget Bill?

You may have heard that the “Big Beautiful” budget bill now moving through Congress is designed to cut taxes, help working families, and reduce wasteful government spending. That’s the sales pitch. But once you look at what’s actually in the bill, the picture looks very different.

This post breaks it down in simple terms — what the bill says it does, what it actually does, and who it’s really for.

What Supporters Say

Supporters of the bill say it will:

• Lower taxes for working people

• Cut taxes on tips and overtime pay

• Eliminate wasteful programs

• Reduce the national debt

All of that sounds good. But the fine print tells a different story.

What’s Actually in the Bill

Large Tax Cuts — Mostly for the Wealthy

• The bill makes permanent the 2017 tax cuts that mostly benefited corporations and high-income earners.

• It adds new tax breaks like eliminating taxes on tips and overtime, which will help some workers — but the biggest benefits, in dollar terms, go to people with high incomes and large estates.

• It raises the amount of money wealthy families can pass down to their heirs without paying any federal estate tax — from about $13 million today to around $15 million per person, and more for couples. That’s tax-free inheritance of up to $30 million per household.

Deep Cuts to Social Programs

• To help pay for the tax cuts, the bill includes nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, food assistance (SNAP), and other social programs.

• These are programs that help low- and middle-income Americans afford healthcare, food, and basic needs.

Adds to the National Debt

• Even with the spending cuts, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will add about $2.3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

• Other analysts suggest the total could be even higher.

What This Means in Practice

While the bill is being sold as pro-worker and fiscally responsible, the effects tell another story:

• People with the most wealth get the biggest long-term tax breaks — especially those planning to pass on large fortunes.

• People with lower incomes face reduced access to healthcare and food assistance.

• The national debt increases, despite claims of deficit reduction.

This is a pattern we’ve seen before: large tax cuts that mostly help the wealthy, followed by calls to shrink programs that working families depend on.

Final Thought

Whatever your political views, it’s worth looking past the headlines and reading between the lines. This bill gives a lot to those who already have the most — and asks those with the least to give something up.

The question isn’t whether tax cuts are good or bad. It’s: who are they for, and who pays for them?

This bill shifts money upward — not just now, but into future generations. And it does it while claiming to help working families and fix the debt. That’s a big promise. But it’s not what the bill actually delivers.

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.