Remembering Pope Francis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTUS Issues Emergency Order to Stop Trump Migrant Deportations

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

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

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

Transported Beyond Seas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how it starts.

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Beast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Confrontation Between Trump and the Supreme Court Has Arrived

The Atlantic

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

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

SAVE Act Advances

Democracy Docket

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

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

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

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

IEEPA in 2025: Tariff Tool or Abuse of Power?

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

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

Not for sanctions.

Not to stop terrorism.

Not for national security in the traditional sense.

He’s using IEEPA to impose global tariffs.

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

What Just Happened?

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

Using IEEPA, he announced two things:

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

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

These new tariffs went into effect within days.

IEEPA had officially entered the world of global trade wars.

Wait — IEEPA Was Meant for Emergencies, Right?

Exactly.

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

It’s been used for things like:

• Hostage crises

• Terror attacks

• Cyberwarfare

• Nuclear proliferation

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

That’s why this move is raising alarms.

The Legal Pushback

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

The argument?

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

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

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

Supporters Say: It’s About Economic Survival

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

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

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

Critics Say: This Isn’t What IEEPA Was For

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

Their main concerns:

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

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

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

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

Why It Matters

This isn’t just a debate about trade.

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

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

• Bypass Congress on major economic policy

• Declare vague or political issues as “emergencies”

• Use emergency laws to reshape the economy by executive order

That’s a big deal.

What Happens Next?

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

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

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

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

Final Thoughts: IEEPA’s Future

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

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

So the big question is:

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

Thanks for reading this series.

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

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

Echoes of Tyranny: Then and Now

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

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

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

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

Blocking Good Laws

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

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

Undermining Justice

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

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

Controlling the Courts

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

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

Using the Military Against the People

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

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

Undermining the Constitution

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

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

Disrupting Trade

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

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

Denying Fair Trials

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

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

Fueling Violence at Home

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

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

Why It Matters

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

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

Read: The Declaration of Independence

Trump’s Use of Alien Enemies Act Explained

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

Here’s what happened, and why it matters.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act?

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

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

Target: Venezuelan Migrants

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

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

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

A Secret Operation to El Salvador

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

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

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

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

The Courts Step In—Too Late for Some

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

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

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

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

Why This Is So Alarming

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

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

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

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

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

What Happens Now?

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

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

Why We Should All Be Paying Attention

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

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

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

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

An Exercise in Power

Chris Murphy

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

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

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

What are tariffs, anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

Why it matters

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

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

Congress needs to take back control

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

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

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

Why Would a President Crash the Economy on Purpose?

…and What History Teaches Us About It

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

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

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

It Looks Good to Their Base

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

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

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

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

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

Chaos Creates Opportunity

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

Example: Hugo Chávez in Venezuela (2000s)

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

Example: Vladimir Putin in Russia (2022–present)

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

They Want to Punish Opponents

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

Example: Donald Trump & European Allies

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

They Actually Believe It Will Work

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

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

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

Example: Hoover, Again

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

It’s a Distraction

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

Example: Chávez & Inflation

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

Modern-Day Parallels

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

The Bottom Line

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

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

We should be asking: “who benefits?”

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

What to Watch For

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

Blame Games

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

Ignoring Experts

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

Attacks on Allies

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

Crises That Conveniently Distract

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

Insider Profits

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

Power Grabs During Panic

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

Stay Informed. Stay Sharp.

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

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

Hands Off!

NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION
SATURDAY, APRIL 5

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

Trump’s Tariff Math May Come from Chatbots

Ars Technica

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

This tracks.

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

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

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

The First Test: War of 1812

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

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

World War I: Fear Takes Over

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

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

World War II: Mass Internment on an Unprecedented Scale

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

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

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

But it didn’t stop there.

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

Legal but Unjust

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

But being legal doesn’t make something right.

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

A Law with a Dangerous Legacy

What do we learn from all this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s break it down.

A Law Born Out of Fear

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

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

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

Not Just Another Law

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

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

From Dormant Law to Wartime Weapon

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

• War of 1812: Used against British nationals.

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

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

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

A New Kind of War?

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

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

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

Why It Matters Now

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

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

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

• How do we balance national security with individual liberty?

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

Teen Deported to El Salvador

Texas Monthly

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

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

April is Testicular Cancer Awareness Month

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

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

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

• 👀 Look for changes in size or shape 

• 👐 Gently feel for lumps or swelling 

• 🤔 Notice any pain or discomfort? 

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

Testicular Cancer Awareness Foundation

The SAVE Act Sounds Harmless. Here’s Why It’s Not.

There’s a bill moving through Congress called the SAVE Act—short for Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. With a name like that, it sounds like it’s about protecting elections and making sure only citizens can vote.

But here’s the thing: noncitizens voting in federal elections is already illegal, and it almost never happens. This bill doesn’t solve a real problem—it creates new ones. Big ones.

Let’s talk about what the SAVE Act would actually do—and why voting rights groups are sounding the alarm.

What the SAVE Act Would Do

If passed, the SAVE Act would require every single person to show proof of U.S. citizenship—like a passport or birth certificate—just to register to vote.

That means:

• No more simple online voter registration

• No more quick sign-ups at the DMV or through voter registration drives

• No registering by mail unless you show up in person with documents

• And if your name has changed (like many married women), you might have to bring extra documents to prove who you are

And if you don’t have those papers? You can’t register. Period.

Why That’s a Big Problem

Millions of eligible voters don’t have easy access to the kinds of documents the SAVE Act requires. Think about it:

• Military families stationed overseas

• Older Americans who were never issued birth certificates

• People displaced by natural disasters who lost important papers

• Low-income citizens who can’t afford to pay for copies of documents

• Married women or anyone whose names don’t match their birth certificates

Even if you’ve been voting your whole life, if you move and need to re-register, you’d be treated like a brand-new voter—and be blocked if you don’t have the right paperwork in hand.

It’s not just inconvenient. It’s a real barrier. And for some people, it means being completely shut out of the voting process.

What About Noncitizens Voting?

Let’s be clear: noncitizen voting is already illegal. Every voter has to sign an oath under penalty of perjury that they are a U.S. citizen. And states already have systems in place to keep the voter rolls clean.

There’s no evidence of widespread fraud. In fact, multiple audits have found that noncitizen voting is incredibly rare—we’re talking a handful of cases in millions of votes.

So the SAVE Act is trying to fix a problem that barely exists, while creating a much bigger one: voter suppression.

Who Does This Benefit?

Supporters of the bill say it’s about “election security.” But critics point out that it would make it much harder for everyday Americans to register and vote, especially if they move, change their name, or don’t have the right documents on hand.

And when voter turnout goes down, it often affects young people, people of color, low-income communities, and voters who move a lot. In other words, groups that some politicians might prefer to keep off the rolls.

Why This Matters

Voting is the foundation of our democracy. It should be accessible, safe, and secure—without putting up walls for people who are already eligible.

The SAVE Act isn’t about safeguarding anything. It’s about making it harder for people to participate in elections—and that’s a step backward.

Don’t just take my word for it:

SAVE Act Text

League of Women Voters

TL;DR

• The SAVE Act would require everyone to show a passport, birth certificate, or similar document just to register to vote

• Millions of eligible voters don’t have those documents handy

• It would hit military families, seniors, married women, people with low incomes, and disaster victims the hardest

• It tries to stop a problem that barely exists—while making it harder for real citizens to vote

Bottom line: Don’t let the name fool you. The SAVE Act isn’t about protecting your vote. It’s about taking it away.