What if I were to tell you that not long ago — maybe 30 or 40 years in the past — there was a political party in America ideologically devoted to protecting the rule of law, restricting the power of the executive branch and limiting the intrusion of the federal government into the free market. This same party was supportive of free trade, immigration, a strong national defense and muscular internationalism.

Could you figure out which party I was describing?

Those too young to have come of age in the era of Ronald Reagan will likely be surprised to discover that I’m talking about the Republican Party.

Two generations ago, the Republican Party was the party of free trade.

The makeover — of the modern Republican Party into the “cult devoted To Donald Trump” is not a new story. But, in the context of the president’s current trade war, the evolution of the Republican Party (some might say devolution) from an ideologically conservative party to one defined, from a policy perspective, largely by economic and social populism is one of the most extraordinary party transformations in modern political history.

True story: Two generations ago, the Republican Party was the party of free trade, and the Democrats were the party of protectionism. The latter is still evident in the reluctance of some Democratic politicians to criticize Trump’s imposition of tariffs. Republicans voiced a clear preference for stability, predictability, and tradition, along with an aversion to radicalism. The DOGE philosophy of “move fast and break things” might have caused William F. Buckley to roll over in his grave.

The GOP’s actual practice of conservatism has always been, to put it mildly, inconsistent. Self-described conservative Republican presidents never actually shrank the size of government, often intervened in the economy, generally expanded the powers of the president, and frequently infringed on political and personal freedom. But the gap between conservative rhetoric and the reality of Trump’s second term has reached Grand Canyon-like proportions.

Over the past month, Trump, the GOP standard bearer for three straight elections, has arguably meddled more aggressively in the U.S. economy than any president of any party in American history. In the process, he’s fostered the kind of economic and political uncertainty that Republicans used to rail against.

This week, when asked by Time Magazine about the status of trade talks with China, Trump said, “I am this giant store. It’s a giant, beautiful store, and everybody wants to go shopping there. And on behalf of the American people, I own the store, and I set prices, and I’ll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay.”

It’s hard to imagine a statement more anathema to Republicans’ oft-stated belief in the efficacy of the free market. A party that long railed against the government picking economic winners and losers is supporting a president who is doing precisely that.

Trump has arguably meddled more aggressively in the U.S. economy than any president of any party in American history.

Indeed, the haphazard nature of Trump’s trade war is allowing well-connected companies to successfully lobby the government to ensure their products are exempted from tariffs. First, it was Apple and semiconductor companies who coaxed an exemption for their goods out of Trump. Next, after companies like Walmart and Target warned of empty shelves at their stores, Trump said the current 145% tariffs on Chinese goods will soon “come down substantially.”

Then there are the less well-known companies, such as manufacturers of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin, which is used to make plastic bottles. They received a tariff exemption for reasons that are unclear. However, ProPublica reportsthat the exemption “is a win for Reyes Holdings, a Coca-Cola bottler that ranks among the largest privately held companies in the U.S. and is owned by a pair of brothers who have donated millions of dollars to Republican causes. Records show the company recently hired a lobbying firm with close ties to the Trump White House to make its case on tariffs” (Neither Reyes Holdings, its lobbyists nor the White House responded to ProPublica’s questions).

The seeking of exemptions is so ripe for corruption that even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page called the process “the Beltway Swamp’s dream.”

“Welcome to the new tariff economy,” says the paper’s editorial board, “where you still pay onerous taxes, endure punishing regulation, and now must also navigate the political minefield of arbitrary tariffs.”

It’s no surprise that the Journal’s editorial writers would advocate for free-market economic policies. They’ve been doing that for years. What’s different now is that the rhetorical fealty to conservative ideology that once defined the Republican Party no longer exists. The Journal once stood at the forefront of the GOP’s governing philosophy — in 2025, it’s been left in the dust.

Dictating to private universities what they can teach, denying due process, thumbing its nose at court orders, and the rule of law — all of these Trump “policies” should be anathema to conservatives. The party that once described America as a “shining city on a hill” and trumpeted America’s global leadership role has now become a virtual handmaiden of Vladimir Putin and a party of belligerent isolationists. Trump’s GOP bears more similarities to the Republican Party of the 1920s and 30s, rather than the Republican Party of the past 70 years.

The irony of all this is that much of what Trump is doing in office is what Republicans said would result from overbearing, big government and an executive branch unchecked by norms and laws — or, in simpler terms, from electing Democrats. In its fealty to Trump — the Republican Party has become the governing monster that it once warned Americans about. Republicans still define themselves as conservatives, but they have discarded any notion of actual conservatism. The GOP is the party of Trump — and defined not by ideology, but rather clownish cultism.

Michael A. Cohen

Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”

When “Andor” originally debutedthe prequel series to a prequel movie set after the prequel trilogy wasn’t heavily promoted by Disney+. With no adorable Baby Yoda a la “The Mandalorian,” only the most devoted fans tuned in. However, as critics quickly discovered, “Andor” contained something far better than plush puppets. For the first time in the franchise’s history, a show took the premise of the original 1977 “Star Wars” film and used it to seriously explore the question of how someone becomes radicalized.

As critics quickly discovered, ‘Andor’ contained something far better than plush puppets.

Due to a variety of factors and 2020 shutdowns, “Andor” wasn’t released until 2022. Season 2, which premiered its first three episodes on April 22, took another three years. But the series hasn’t lost a step, broadening its focus from the individual to the collective as it portrays an entire population teetering on the edge of rebellion. I’d argue that the episodes we’ve seen suggest “Andor” is the best “Star Wars” series ever made. And it’s an incredibly well-timed reminder of how relevant the franchise’s story of democracy vs. authoritarianism actually is.

Over the course of nearly 50 years, George Lucas’ “Evil Empire” has stood in for many things. But “Andor” is the clearest use of the “Star Wars” mythology yet as a critique of our own government, concurrent with the events being allegorized. (One could argue — and people have — that “Return of the Jedi” had Vietnam War overtones, but it came out in 1983, long after the war ended.) “Andor” is showing how the wheels come off a fictional democracy just as the wheels appear to be coming off a very real democracy most thought was indestructible.

The result is a show that hits far too close to home. The series’ Mexican-born star Diego Luna (who also has an executive producer credit) plays an undocumented immigrant on the run from the British-accented white men of the Empire, falling in and out with random groups of would-be rebels in various stages of radicalization. Midlevel government stooges root out the undocumented under the guise of “the census.” They may not wear vests emblazoned with “ICE,” but comparisons to reports on the nightly news are too obvious to miss. The well-dressed and privileged citizens casually discussing the demolition of an entire planet while snacking on the most fantastic hors d’oeuvres feels similarly pointed. (The camera makes sure to linger over the delicacies as we hear the diners casually discussing genocide.)

Disney is releasing the series in three-episode groups over four weeks. This is partly due to the show’s structure, which focuses on different vignettes around the galaxy, tracing the threads of the growing crisis to its explosive center. But it also means that Disney+ may be trying to downplay criticism. (April and May are some of the most crowded months of the television calendar, making “Andor” one of many high-profile series currently trying to get traction in the entertainment sphere.)

It’s also possible Lucasfilm was never expecting ‘Andor’ to become such a runaway success, political themes and all.

It’s also possible Lucasfilm was never expecting “Andor” to become such a runaway success, political themes and all. Not that anyone has said a bad word about the show — when you have a hit, you smile and tell everyone how much you believed in it from the get-go. The show had early support from Luna, who was eager to reprise his popular “Rogue One” character. Perhaps more importantly, the show was greenlit in 2018, before Lucasfilm released “The Rise of Skywalker,” a sequel that took what had been a successful trilogy revival of the franchise and destroyed it by capitulating to small but vocal pockets of reactionary fans.

There is now nothing else like “Andor” in the “Star Wars” pipeline.

In fact, there’s barely anything in the pipeline. Since Disney bought Lucasfilm in 2012, two dozen projects from high-profile writers have been triumphantly announced, only to be quietly canned. Meanwhile, the feature film count since 2019’s “The Rise of Skywalker” stands at zero. We are in a moment when the “Star Wars” story is more relevant than it’s possibly ever been. We need more powerful characters standing up for democracy and against injustice. This isn’t a long time ago or in a galaxy far, far away. “Andor” shouldn’t be the outlier; it should be the new standard.

Ani Bundel

Ani Bundel is a cultural critic who has been writing regularly since 2010. Her work can also be found at Elite Daily and WETA’s Telly Visions, where she also co-hosts “Telly Visions: The Podcast.”

A federal judge in Louisiana has scheduled a hearing next month over a “strong suspicion” that the Trump administration deported a 2-year-old U.S. citizen “with no meaningful process.”

In an order issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty is pushing to get information as to whether the administration removed the 2-year-old child, identified as “VML” in court documents, to Honduras alongside her mother, who Doughty said is an undocumented immigrant.

The judge detailed in his order how the court tried to reach the toddler’s mother on Friday knowing that they were being flown out of the U.S. at the time, but was informed by government lawyers that the woman could not be contacted because she and presumably her daughter “had just been released in Honduras.”

“It is illegal and unconstitutional to deport, detain for deportation, or recommend deportation of a U.S. citizen,” Doughty wrote, citing a 2012 deportation case.

Attorneys for the family had filed a petition Thursday seeking the toddler’s immediate release by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to a custodian appointed by her father. They said immigration officers took into custody the toddler — who was born in Baton Rouge — her 11-year-old sister and her mother during a routine check-in with the “Intensive Supervision Appearance Program” on April 22.

Later that day, when the father tried to contact VML’s mother, he was only allowed to speak to her for “about or less than a minute” over the phone.

According to the petition:

The next morning, when an attorney for the father spoke with ICE New Orleans Field Director Melissa Harper on the phone, she “began interrogating the attorney as to V.M.L.’s father’s immigration status,” the petition said. Harper told the attorney that ICE would not release the toddler because she “was already with her mother” and that “the father could try to pick her up, but that he would also be taken into custody,” according to the family’s attorneys.

Government lawyers said the toddler’s mother had indicated in a handwritten letter dated Thursday at 6:23 p.m. that she would take her daughter to Honduras, NBC News reported. But the judge noted that the court had not independently determined that. “The Government contends that this is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her. But the Court doesn’t know that,” Doughty wrote.

He ordered a hearing in the case on May 16.

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE did not respond to NBC News’ requests for comment late on Friday.

The Trump administration also deported at least two other families that day, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Two mothers and their young children were deported Friday morning “under deeply troubling circumstances that raise serious due process concerns,” according to the ACLU. One of the mothers is pregnant, the organization said, and three of the children deported are U.S. citizens ages 2, 4 and 7 — one of whom has cancer.

Clarissa-je Lim

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking/trending news blogger for BLN Digital. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.