The Dictatorship
Marco Rubio’s social media order shows the blatant hypocrisy of Trump’s ‘free speech warriors’
President Donald Trump is running headlong into his radical reimagining of America — one in which freedom of speech, basic civil liberties and equal protection under the law are privileges to be bestowed by the state, rather than inalienable rights for everyone. At the same time, he’s also made the country less safe and the government less accountable to the people.
Trump does not believe he is constrained by the law, and the Supreme Court seems to agree, having granted the president immunity for almost any official action.
In less than three months, the president and his administration have fired inspectors generalused the threat of government sanctions to compel law firms and universities into making payoffs and curricula changeslaunched speech-chilling investigations into media companiesequated protests against a foreign government’s war (a war that’s unpopular even among that government’s own citizens) with support for terrorismand deported, without due processinnocent people present in the U.S. legally. And that’s hardly a comprehensive summary.
It seems like a lifetime ago, but it has been barely more than two months since Trump pardoned nearly every Jan. 6 rioter — including those who attacked police and threatened to murder the vice president, and the leaders of neo-fascist militant groups who argued in court that Trump incited the assault on the Capitol.
Trump might be obsessed with projecting what he views as “strength,” but in an incredibly short period of time, he’s made America increasingly vulnerable to terror and cyber attacksviruses that could launch another pandemic and tanked millions of people’s retirement funds.
Beginning in the summer of 2015, when it was clear that Trump’s candidacy was not a fluke and that he could win the 2016 Republican nomination, I anxiously wondered for years what Trump would do in a “Black Swan” situation, like a major terror attack. I don’t really wonder anymore — because he’s already doing it.
The New York Times and The Handbasket reported this week that Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a cable to diplomats ordering them to scrutinize visa applicants’ social media for any criticism of the U.S. and Israel. “This may be evident in conduct that bears a hostile attitude toward U.S. citizens or U.S. culture (including government, institutions, or founding principles). Or it may be evident in advocacy or sympathy for foreign terrorist organizations. All of these matters may open lines of inquiry regarding the applicant’s credibility and purpose of travel,” the cable reportedly reads.
We’re only weeks removed from the Trump administration using a very loose definition of “support for Hamas” as a pretext for deportations of legal immigrants. But does the administration also view “sympathy” for Gazan civilians — suffering in unspeakable conditions as a result of the Israel-Hamas war — or criticism of the Israeli government to be “advocacy or sympathy for foreign terrorist organizations”? The answer is almost certainly: yes.
How about a legal permanent resident, not a pro-Palestinian activist, expressing criticism of Trump and his administration? Would that constitute “a hostile attitude toward U.S. citizens or U.S. culture (including government, institutions, or founding principles)”? Again, almost certainly: yes.
Presumably, Trump supporters critical of the so-called Deep State — composed of U.S. government and institutions — would receive a pass. The same likely goes for MAGA thought leaders who reject some of America’s founding principles — like its opposition to monarchy.
We have plenty of reason for concern that a Trump-led government might exploit the trauma and chaos of a crisis to deny American citizens their rights.
Trump’s deputy chief of policy, Stephen Miller, defended the administration’s position on denying due process to immigrants on Fox News earlier this week: “They have the temerity to say that every single invader should get their own individual judicial trial before they are deported. One at a time, each one gets a one million-dollar trial in front of a communist judge to decide whether or not we can send them home. How about, ‘Hell no.’”
But due process doesn’t necessarily mean the accused stands trial. It does mean the government has to at least give you the opportunity to say something like, “I’m not a violent gang member! I’m a law-abiding, tax-paying, legal resident with a family here.” And it means agents of the state have to actually check out that claim before they deprive you of your civil rights.
Trump — a convicted felon whose lawyers used his rights to due process to drag out legal proceedings long enough for the indictments to become moot by his re-election — leads an administration that conducts arrests and deportations without due process and ignores court orders. His administration is already claiming war powers under the Alien Enemies Acteven though we are not at war.
But if this country were hit by a major attack, we have no reason to expect the Trump administration will consider itself restrained by the Constitution, or that “suspects” will be afforded due process. We do, however, have plenty of reason for concern that a Trump-led government might exploit the trauma and chaos of a crisis to deny American citizens their rights, if they’re deemed “the enemy” by this rogue administration.
Trump does not believe he is constrained by the law, and the Supreme Court seems to agree, having granted the president immunity for almost any official action. He and his allies are already musing about ignoring the Constitution and pursuing a third term in the White House. Think about that kind of unchecked power being used after a terror attack. A grieving, frightened populace could be frightened into surrendering whatever civil liberties they have left. And even if they don’t, Trump could potentially suspend them anyway — just as he is now, when we’re not at war.
As unsettling as the Trump administration’s actions have been, it has provided a helpful reminder that civil liberties, due process and free speech are meant to apply to all Americans — and everyone else here legally.
It’s equally instructive to watch a reactionary administration — whose members absurdly cosplay as “free speech warriors” — mimic the same excesses of left-wing activists and politicians who advocated for the government and other authorities to be the arbiters of “hate speech” and “disinformation.” You can replace those words with “terrorist sympathies,” but the impulse is the same. The censor is certain they possess the absolute truth.
To be very clear, the left-wing campus “cancel culture” of roughly the past decade cannot remotely be conflated with what the Trump administration is doing. While many expressions of recent progressive campus activism have been counterproductive, illiberal and hypocritical, left-wing cancel culture never sent masked federal agents in plainclothes to abduct a grad student off a city street in broad daylight over an op-ed protesting a foreign government.
Authentic free speech and civil liberties advocates have consistently tried to remind Americans that the right to express what some people might consider to be truly horrible things is the entire point of free speech. Popular speech needs no protections. Unpopular speech does. And right now, the government has a frighteningly overbroad view of what speech it deems unacceptable. It also doesn’t believe it’s constrained by the law or the courts or distinctions between war and peacetime.
Imagining what this administration would do in the event of an actual act of war should chill the blood of anyone paying attention. The Trump administration is cancel culture with a secret police force and unlimited power.
Anthony L. Fisher is a senior editor and writer for BLN Daily. He was previously the senior opinion editor for The Daily Beast and a politics columnist for Business Insider.
President Donald Trump was “thunderously booed” Monday night at Madison Square Garden in New York City when he was shown on the Jumbotron ahead of Game 3 of the NBA Finalsaccording to the White House press pool report.
The stadium’s reaction comes after some New York Knicks fans warned he would not receive a warm welcome during the home game matchup against the San Antonio Spurs — despite New York City being the president’s hometown.
The White House press pool report described the boos as “loud and long” and noted the reaction “quickly changed to cheers when the camera quickly panned to [Knicks guard] Jalen Brunson on the court.”
Trump was “standing with his hand over his heart” during the National Anthem as he was met with boos, the pool report said, adding that he was standing between his granddaughter Kai Trump and Knicks owner James Dolan, who “seemed to be smirking at the boos.”
The president’s posse included several administration officials, also watching in the suite, including Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.
At least one Trump official made a courtside appearance with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick seated next to rappers Fat Joe and famed producer DJ Khaled.
The Knicks came into Monday night’s game leading the series 2-0, and fans are hoping for a sweep. That is, defeating the Spurs in four consecutive games without a single loss. The team is on the precipice of earning its first championship since 1973, but Trump’s attendance has sparked outcry from many fans.
Trump, who was invited to attend by Dolan, is the first sitting president to attend an NBA Finals game. Security at the arena has been enhanced in response, and fans attending the game have been encouraged to arrive at least two hours before tipoff to allow extra time for TSA-style screening.
To many fans’ disappointment, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced that the watch party typically held outside MSG during games has been canceled due to Trump’s visit after the mayor, the U.S. Secret Service and the NYPD determined that it would hinder the heightened security measures required for Trump.
Mamdani announced Monday that Bryant Park will serve as a free alternative Knicks watch party location.
The president’s attendance comes against the backdrop of high-stakes elections and international conflict, including the war with Iranwhich has entered its 15th week, marking just over 100 days since the U.S. and Israel launched a joint attack against the country on Feb. 28. His visit also comes weeks after he declined to attend the wedding of his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., citing “a thing called Iran and other things.”
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
ByRichard L. Hasen
During normal times, the president of the United States would not routinely claim, without evidence, an epidemic of “voter fraud.” But Donald Trump is on another tirade about supposed fraud — this time in California’s primary elections. If there’s any good news, though, the publicity and pushback against his claims will inoculate the public against similar unsupported charges in November’s midterms, if control of Congress depends upon late-arriving results in the Golden State.
Let’s begin with some obvious points. California’s vote-counting process is notoriously slow. Millions of the state’s voters choose to vote by mail, and election officials’ efforts to confirm that voters have followed all the rules take some time. The state has unusually lenient rules for both the receipt of mail-in ballots (timely postmarked ballots may be counted if election officials receive them within seven days of the election) and for curing defective ballots (such as mail ballots on which a voter forgets to add their signature). Despite the popularity of mail-in ballots, the state has not prioritized saving state resources over a quicker vote count.
Further, it is rather routine that California results show Republican and more conservative candidates doing well in initial tallies, only for Democrats and liberal candidates to appear to “gain” as more ballots are tallied. Voters who have lived in the same place longer, own a home, are white and are wealthier are all more likely to receive and send back their ballots early — and they are also more likely to vote Republican.
President Trump has incessantly fueled beliefs on the right that voter fraud is prevalent in Democratic states.
Think about election tallying this way. You have to be away from your television during the Super Bowl and so you record the game. When you watch it the next day — having avoided hearing the result in between — the game is already over. The winner was the same before you watched and after. It is the same with California’s election ballots: All the ballots were cast by Election Day, the election is over, and we just must wait to learn the final results.
The issue of late-voting Democrats was especially pronounced in last week’s elections. In the Los Angeles mayoral race, polls show many voters undecided between unpopular incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, reality TV star Spencer Pratt (running to her right) and Los Angeles City Council member Nithya Raman (running to Bass’ left). Bass made it to the runoff, and the first vote totals showed Pratt in second. But late Monday, with 93% of the ballots counted the Associated Press projected that Raman will join Bass in this fall’s general election.
In the state’s gubernatorial primary, the initial results placed Republican Steve Hilton in first, ahead of Democrats Xavier Becerra and Tom Steyer. As more ballots were processed, Becerra moved into first late Friday. Hilton is still likely to finish in the top two and advance to the general election, but Steyer has not yet been ruled out given the number of outstanding ballots.
This “blue shift” would not be a problem if we lived in normal times. If we have to wait a week or two to find out which candidates will face Bass and Becerra, that’s plenty of time to prepare for November. Unfortunately, President Trump has incessantly fueled beliefs on the right that voter fraud is prevalent in Democratic states, and in particular that California’s slow vote count shows that the system is “crooked.” He did it again last week. It undermines voters’ confidence in our elections’ integrity for no good reason.
And he’s not alone. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson told reporters the “efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream it’s impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively that something is wrong here.” Yes, the alleged voter fraud claimed by Trump and his allies is always the perfect crime: happening on a massive scale yet impossible to detect. It’s quite convenient to have a theory that is completely unfalsifiable.
Some supporters of Pratt have made similar charges without evidence or simply “asked questions” about potential fraud. They only embarrass themselves by showing that either they don’t understand how California’s process works or they are cynical enough to think the public will accept false claims.
Even now, there is much to worry about regarding November’s elections.
If the race for control of the House of Representatives is close in November, the balance of power could well come down to races in California. Media reports on early returns will show Republican candidates “in the lead” but Democrats “gaining” as more votes are counted. Should that come to pass, I fully expect that Trump and his supporters will again cry fraud and try to delegitimize any Democratic victories and the integrity of the election process.
Even now, there is much to worry about regarding November’s elections. Trump’s U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Bill Essayli, said he is investigating potential fraud in California’s primaries based upon no evidence. This follows the administration’s ongoing probes related to the 2020 election — efforts that could be a test run for the midterms.
The administration is trying to assemble a national citizen database and attempting to forbid the the U.S. Postal Service from returning mailed ballots from voters who are not on approved lists, a matter now being litigated in courts. Both federal law enforcement and cybersecurity officials have reportedly canceled efforts to help state and local election officials secure the 2026 elections.
But Trump has shown his hand and he’s come up short. It is hard to overstate the importance of the exchange on Sunday between Trump and NBC News’ “Meet the Press” anchor Kristen Welker. Speaking about California’s elections, Trump said“They’re crooked just like you’re crooked, your press is crooked. And ‘Meet the Press’ is crooked.” As Welker pushed him repeatedly for evidence, Trump could only repeat his entirely unsupported charges: “There’s tremendous evidence. There’s nothing but evidence.” In the end, he stormed out.
In the long term, California should still do what it can to speed up the vote count; that would help maintain confidence in elections. With enough resources thrown at the problem and commands from the Legislature, election officials can improve their ballot processing time. But serious progress is unlikely before November.
For this year, election officials, the media and even the public all play roles in assuring voters about the fairness and integrity of the process. California election officials have been quite transparent about their processes all along the way, and that should continue. Media outlets should stop reporting which candidate is “in the lead.” This is not an ongoing election; the election is over, and the results are simply “too early to call.”
In response to charges of “voter fraud,” ordinary people can share media, such as the two-minute exchange between Trump and Welkerwhich show the emptiness of the president’s claims.
Rumormongering about California was always likely to be central to the president’s attempts to weaken faith in this year’s elections. But thanks to Trump himself, anyone paying any attention knows that California’s vote count is notoriously slow, that the “blue shift” favoring Democrats routinely happens and that Trump has produced no evidence to support his claims. The boy has cried wolf too many times, and if he tries this again in November, the appropriate response should be repudiation, not panic.
Richard L. Hasen
Richard L. Hasen is professor at UCLA School of Law, where he directs its Safeguarding Democracy Project.
Los Angeles Council member Nithya Raman will advance to the November general election in the mayoral race to face the incumbent, Karen Bassafter overtaking ex-reality TV star Spencer Pratt in the primary, The Associated Press projects.
Raman has steadily trended upward in the vote count since Election Day, and she overtook Pratt on Sunday. Monday’s vote update gives Raman a cushion of more than 20,000 votes, making her position in the top two safe, with an estimated 93% of the vote counted.
The runoff between Raman, 44, and Bass, 72, is the latest example of a younger Democrat trying to oust an older incumbent. Raman, a Harvard- and MIT-educated member of the Democratic Socialists of America who has represented LA’s 4th City Council District since 2020, launched her surprise mayoral campaign in February — less than two weeks after she endorsed Bass’ campaign for re-election.
The runoff between Raman, 44, and Bass, 72, is the latest example of a younger Democrat trying to oust an older incumbent.
She campaigned on a pledge to bring change to the city, but struggled to deliver consistent messaging during debates, where she walked back some of her more left-wing policy stancesincluding support for defunding the police and opposing anti-camping zones for homeless people.
Bass previously represented LA in the California Assembly, including as speaker. She has served six terms in the U.S. House and entered the mayor’s race facing extensive criticism from Angelenos over both her handling of last year’s deadly LA wildfires — she was in Ghana when the blazes broke out — and her failure to achieve her goal of ending homelessness by the end of her first term.
She has pledged that, if re-elected, she will deliver on that goal. She has also vowed to continue standing up to the Trump administration, pointing to her confrontation with federal agents when the president deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the city last year.
In a statement provided to MS NOW Monday night, Raman thanked her supporters and sought to cast herself as a change agent, pledging to “fight for a healthier, safer, more affordable, and more joyful Los Angeles.”
“For too long, City Hall has prioritized giving political advantage to powerful interests that fund elections. Meanwhile, working people pay the price in higher rents, depleted services, and a city that has stopped working for them,” Raman said. “If you’re as frustrated by the broken status quo as I am, I hope you’ll join our movement to build a city that works for everyone.”
Meanwhile, Bass campaign strategist Douglas Herman said in a statement to MS NOW Monday night: “A campaign against Nithya Raman, who allows encampments near schools and cuts the police force, is one Mayor Bass looks forward to winning.”
Pratt’s fast rise, social media savvy and massive online audience also seemed to make it more difficult for Raman to break through in the primary. He outraised both Bass and Raman since launching his campaign in January.
But some strategists predictedPratt’s backing by MAGA, and President Donald Trump himself, would ultimately help catapult Raman to second place in deep-blue LA.
Indeed, Pratt’s lead over Raman steadily narrowed since primary night as mail-in ballots came in — a fact that Trump and other MAGA allies baselessly alleged proved “fraud” in the race. On Tuesday, Pratt led Raman by 9 percentage points; by Sunday night, she had overtaken him by less than 1 percentage point.
Spokespeople for Pratt’s campaign did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s requests for comment after the results were called Monday night.
Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.
- Knives come out for ODNI
- Inside Mamdani aide’s private budget briefing for the DSA
- Raphael Warnock meets with Mike Johnson after questioning speaker’s Christian faith
- US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict
- Trump not expected to act on Pulte after Johnson meeting
- Longtime Epstein assistant says she set up phone calls between Epstein and Trump
- US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict
- US to reach $41T debt ceiling as soon as late winter, forecasters predict
- Ted Lieu slams bipartisan AI proposal
- Push for Labor nominee is latest threat to House GOP majority
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words