The Dictatorship
The Marshall Plan was created to defend democracy in 1948. We wrote a new version for 2025.
It is no secret that American democracy is in crisis. From the 2020 flood of actions and disinformation that culminated in the events of Jan. 6, 2021to the repeated threats to weaponize the rule of law and fire civil servants to replace them with loyalists, we are clearly in a renewed moment of democracy crisis. We are in danger of losing our rights and freedoms unless we act boldly and swiftly. Unfortunately, too many are sleepwalking through our present moment and not understanding or doing anything about this threat to America.
Fortunately, political science research and the lived experience of other backsliding democracies — and how they reversed course — offer solutions. Our organization, the Brookings Institution, conceptualized and published the original Marshall Plan. One of its main goals was to secure democracy in Europe against autocratic threats after World War II. That legacy inspired us and our colleagues to formulate a new Marshall Plan to meet this dire moment: the Democracy Playbook.
Perhaps most important of these steps is that American elections and their outcomes must be protected.
In this document, we survey the political science data and current events landscape, pull tactics and lessons learned from global democracies — both those that are backsliding and those holding strong. Out of all that effort emerged a set of specific steps and recommendations, including seven pillars to save democracy. These pillars can be a guide for pro-democracy actors in the U.S. to prevent backsliding and, when possible, go on the offensive to strengthen democratic institutions. We pull from scholarship and practice to capture the lived experiences that are sometimes overlooked by engaging with political scientists, government officials, activists and practitioners. And we use the examples of PolandBrazil and the Czech Republicall of which successfully ousted their undemocratic regimes.
Perhaps most important of these steps is that American elections and their outcomes must be protected. That is because free, fair and transparent elections are the way out of backsliding. But that system has been pressured, as is happening right now in a state Supreme Court election in North Carolinawhere the losing candidate is currently contesting to overturn his electoral loss by citing baseless allegations of voter fraud.
Would anyone be surprised if we see moves to undermine the bedrock of our democracy this year in Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races? Or in the critical races in 2026 to determine control of Congress and other midterm-year contests that will shape how American elections are adjudicated and our nation governed going forward? Will elections continue to be free, fair and transparent, like the one that delivered Donald Trump to the White House? Or will future American elections mirror the facades of “electoral autocracy” like in Hungary?
Equally important to preserving democracy is vigorous action to protect the rule of law and guard against the dangerous erosion of checks and balances. Our research shows that the path to autocracy is paved with examples of abuse of legalism, prosecutorial and judicial capture and weaponization of the state. Using the government as a cudgel to go after political opponents is never acceptable in a thriving democracy — look at how state power is bluntly wielded against citizens in Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.
When undemocratic candidates gain power, sometimes through elections, there must be a fail-safe that protects against autocracy: the law. We highlight the current threat environment, including to the U.S. judiciary and its independence. Even conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who has joined numerous deeply troubling opinionshas nevertheless echoed these concerns. The American democratic framework is built to bend but not break under bouts of irresponsible governance — with critical checks and balances by way of constitutional norms that leverage courts, legislatures, civil society and media to establish anti-autocracy guardrails. But it will be tested as never before.
Protecting our democracy does not stop there. The forces that support autocracy feast on corruption and efforts to dim the lights of transparency and accountability.
Of course, there is much more than just those three steps to saving a democracy.
That is why we raised combating corruption to be the third of our seven pillars. We saw this challenge in Trump’s first administrationand America is heading further toward oligarchy. For example, Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual, contributed $277 million to Donald Trump’s campaign and the races of other Republican candidates. Musk has been rewarded with a semi-official position in Trump’s government with questionable oversight or accountability. His supposed role gives him the chance to pressure or cut funding to agencies that regulate his commercial industries. With over a dozen billionaires lined up for senior positions, Trump’s second administration will be the wealthiest in American historyfeaturing secretaries in the top 0.0001% who may share a steadfast allegiance to Trump rather than to the Constitution.
Of course, there is much more than just those three steps to saving a democracy. In the Democracy Playbook, we lay out four more main pillars: reinforce civic and media space, protect pluralistic governance, counter disinformation, and make democracy deliver.
You might well ask, why only seven? Part of the challenge of dealing with autocracy is autocrats take a flood-the-zone approach that shocks people and quickly overwhelms the system. It is therefore important to not only be reactive, but also to be proactive to figure out what actions pose the greatest risks to democracy — and vigorously respond to them. Responding to flood-the-zone tactics in this fashion is among the reasons that Polandthe Czech Republic and Brazil restored democracy while Hungary did not.
Where do we go from here? Every sector of American life must get its act together, and fast, if democracy is to be saved. Media can’t engage in false equivalences or burnish dangerous disinformation. Civic society needs to activate. Big tent coalitions will be necessary, as was the case in those countries where backslide was reversed. Labor has an essential and foundational role to play, as does business, including the tech and media sectors.
But above all, it’s up to the American people. Across party lines, the majority of Americans agree democracy is the best form of government. While Trump and his supporters insist the election was a sweeping mandate, it was an extremely close contest in which the opposition of many Americans to deeply controversial plans associated with Donald Trump’s campaign contributed to him receiving less than 50% of votes cast.
Since the time of the Marshall Plan, America has succeeded in meeting enormous challenges. We are at another one of those moments in which the outcome of our actions will have a generational impact. As we point out in our playbook, those who count America out prematurely have learned from their mistakes, and we certainly do not believe the American people are prepared to abandon freedoms.
Using the Democracy Playbook as a guide, we envision a modern version of a Marshall Plan that can restore democracy to the country that has been, in the words of former President Ronald Reagan, a “shining city on a hill” for over two centuries — but only if we all work together.
Norman L. Eisen
Ambassador Norman Eisen (ret.) is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and an expert on law, ethics, and anti-corruption.
Jonathan Katz
Jonathan Katz is the senior irector of the Anti-Corruption, Democracy, and Security (ACDS) project at the Brookings Institution.
The Dictatorship
Judge sides with NYT against policy limiting reporters’ Pentagon access
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge agreed Friday to block the Trump administration from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon, agreeing with The New York Times that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., sided with the newspaper and ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.
The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.
The Defense Department has been letting some of the legacy media reporters that didn’t agree to the restrictions back in the Pentagon for some of Hegseth’s Iran war briefings. Hegseth rarely calls on them, although he did recently take questions from reporters like Eric Schmitt of The Times and Luis Martinez of ABC.
Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials. He ruled that it violates the First and Fifth amendment rights to free speech and due process.
“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell posted late Friday on X, “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.”
Times lauds ruling as boon for press freedom
New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the ruling “enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country.”
“Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”
Theodore Boutrous, an attorney who represented The Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court ruling is “a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war.”
The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists. He also said his decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties.”
Noting that part of the ruling, the Pentagon Press Association — which includes AP reporters — called for the immediate reinstatement of the credentials of all its members.
The PPA released a statement saying: “This is a great day for freedom of the press in the United States. It is also hopefully a learning opportunity for Pentagon leadership, which took extreme steps to limit press access to information in wartime.”
The Defense Departmant has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.
“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government attorneys wrote.
Times attorneys claim the policy is designed to silence unfavorable press coverage of President Donald Trump’s administration.
“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.
Judge finds Pentagon tried to weed out ‘disfavored’ journalists
The judge said he recognizes that “national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected.”
“But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing — so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election,” Friedman wrote.
Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.
“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s (credentials),” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”
Pentagon must update judge in a week
The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his ruling for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused. He gave the Pentagon a week to file a written report on its compliance with the order.
The Times argued that the Pentagon has applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper noted that Trump ally Laura Loomera right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorized information by promoting her “tip line.” The government didn’t object to Loomer’s tip line but concluded that a Washington Post tip line does violate its policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.
The judge said he doesn’t see any meaningful difference between the two tip lines.
“But the problem is that nothing in the Policy explicitly prevents the Department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman added.
__
Associated Press writers Konstantin Toropin in Washington and David Bauder in New York contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
‘Shamefully stupid’: Critics blast U.S. move to lift Iran oil sanctions
Critics say the Trump administration’s decision to halt sanctions on Iranian oil — in a bid to curb soaring energy prices caused by the intensifying war — benefits the very regime the United States is fighting.
“It’s very clear that the Trump administration is trying to alleviate some of these global energy and oil market pressures, but at the same time, what they’re doing is allowing Iran to be able to benefit from that relaxation of sanctions,” former CIA Director John Brennan said on MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Saturday. “It shows the inconsistencies in these policies.”
Brennan, MS NOW’s senior national security and intelligence analyst, predicted the conflict will last “a long, long time, and it’s going to be very, very dangerous for U.S. national security interests.”
Philip Gordon, a former national security official in the Biden, Obama and Clinton administrations, accused Trump of hypocrisy for “giving Iran up to ten times” the amount of money that former President Barack Obama sent to the country in 2016.
When Obama sent Iran $400m + $1.3bn in interest in 2016 Trump called it “insane” and he and others spent a decade mocking the idea of “pallets of cash” even though it was Iran’s own money, American prisoners were released, courts were likely to require the U.S. payment, and Iran… https://t.co/RhP8nZRT9D
— Phil Gordon (@PhilGordonDC) March 21, 2026
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the pause in sanctions in a post on X Friday, saying it would add roughly 140 million barrels of oil to global markets. He said Iran “will have difficulty accessing any revenue generated” from those sales, and that the U.S. will essentially “be using the Iranian barrels against Tehran to keep the price down.”
But critics, including those in Congress, which did not authorize President Donald Trump’s decision to wage war on Iran jointly with Israel, say easing sanctions on the Islamic Republic helps Tehran no matter how the administration tries to sell it.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, accused the administration of “giving the regime a financial lifeline.”
“To say the President has no plan is an understatement,” she said in a statement on X.
“The Trump Administration is lifting sanctions on Iranian oil, giving the regime a financial lifeline while Americans continue to feel the impact of @POTUS’s war.
To say the President has no plan is an understatement.” –@SenatorShaheen https://t.co/tiiHbD9NaF
— Senate Foreign Relations Committee (@SFRCdems) March 20, 2026
In an attempt to stem the economic fallout from the war, as Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz destabilizes global energy markets, the Trump administration also lifted sanctions on Russian oil last week, angering European allies who want to continue exerting economic pressure on Moscow.
“Sickeningly, shamefully stupid—lifting sanctions on oil sales by Russia & Iran, fueling their war machines with windfall cash,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a social media post on Friday. “A minimal benefit to oil prices, but huge boost to sworn enemies.”
Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council spokesman in the Obama administration, said“This is the biggest, dumbest concession ever given to Iran by the US and all you need to know about what a disaster Trump’s policy is.”
Neither Trump nor members of his administration have given a definitive timeline for U.S. involvement in the war. Trump told MS NOW’s Stephanie Ruhle on Friday that it would take Iran 10 years to rebuild if the U.S. ended the war now, but suggested that was not acceptable to him.
“If we stay longer, they’ll never rebuild,” he said.
Still, the president indicated later in the day that he is thinking of an exit soon. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he is considering “winding down” the military operation against Iran and claimed that the U.S. is “getting very close to meeting our objectives” — despite having said repeatedly that the U.S. has “won” the war.
Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.
The Dictatorship
Trump threatens to deploy ICE to run airport security during shutdown
President Donald Trump says U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will take over security at the nation’s airports amid staffing shortages and extensive lines as soon as Monday if Democrats won’t back a GOP government funding bill.
“If the Democrats do not allow for Just and Proper Security at our Airports, and elsewhere throughout our Country, ICE will do the job far better than ever done before!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social Saturday afternoon as the Senate met in a rare weekend session. “I look forward to moving ICE in on Monday, and have already told them to, ‘GET READY.’”
The president doubled down on a threat he made earlier in the day after Senate Republicans blocked a long-shot attempt by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to pay TSA agents separately while the Department of Homeland Security shutdown drags on. A funding bill failed to pass the Senate for the fifth time on Friday.
“If the Radical Left Democrats don’t immediately sign an agreement to let our Country, in particular, our Airports, be FREE and SAFE again,” Trump wrote earlier on Truth Social“I will move our brilliant and patriotic ICE Agents to the Airports where they will do Security like no one has ever seen before, including the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country, with heavy emphasis on those from Somalia.”
MS NOW has reached out to ICE and DHS for comment.
Flight delays and long security lines at airports have become a pattern over the past week as more TSA agents — who are required to work without pay — are not showing up. Acting deputy TSA administrator Adam Stahl told CBS News this week that officials “may have to shut down airports” if funding continues to stall.
Homeland security funding has lapsed for weeks as Democrats maintain their demands for reforms to the department’s heavy-handed and even lethal immigration enforcement tactics.
Schumer on Saturday urged his Senate colleagues to support his effort to force a vote on funding for TSA agents. “It’s unacceptable for workers and travelers and entire airports to get taken hostage in political games,” the New York Democrat said. “But that’s what the Republicans are doing. It is unacceptable to say we will only pay TSA workers if it is attached to a bill that funds ICE with no reforms. But that’s what the Republicans have been doing.”
Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship6 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics11 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’





