Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The Trump admin’s book purge at the Naval Academy goes beyond petty authoritarianism

Published

on

The Trump admin’s book purge at the Naval Academy goes beyond petty authoritarianism

The Trump administration’s rush to enact authoritarian policies has touched all parts of American lifebut we didn’t expect it to affect our family the way it did.

We are a mother-daughter writing team. In mid-April, one of us, Cathy Johnson, found out that the U.S. Naval Academy had removed her book in a Trump administration-led purge of its library. To her, and to the rest of our family, this decision came as a surprise. Cathy and her co-authors published the book, “Creating Gender: The Sexual Politics of Welfare Policy,” in 2007. It’s an academic book that received positive reviews from leading political science journals.

But without offering an explanation to Cathy or her publisher, the academy removed it from circulation. A spokesperson for the Navy told us that the removals were “in order to comply with directives outlined in Executive Orders issued by the President.”

Without offering an explanation to Cathy or her publisher, the academy removed it from circulation.

Neither of us are strangers to pushback from the right. One of Cathy’s courses at Williams College on feminism and political activism was targeted by campus conservative groups in the early 2000s. Hannah, her daughter, has been reporting on and researching the radical right, including its ties to the first and second Trump administrations, for nearly a decade. While we’re not shocked by these brazen attempts to quash intellectual inquiry from an administration whose prior term ended with an armed insurrection in the U.S. Capitol, we find these developments particularly disturbing.

Co-authored with professors Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Noelle Norton, “Creating Gender” argues that ideas about gender are a flashpoint in American politics, one that intersects with the familiar left-right spectrum. By drawing on gender theory, social welfare policy and the study of legislative behavior, the book examines the ways in which political actors use policy to shape “the way men and women should live their lives.” Policy praises and condemns; it rewards and punishes.

“Creating Gender” investigates how ideas about gender influenced the design and implementation of social welfare policy as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) — a program that helps states fund services for low-income families with children — was adopted and then implemented by the states.

The administration and its allies have railed against “gender ideology extremism,” which it has used to enact anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. To the extent that “gender ideology” refers to the notion that ideas about gender can, and do, inform policymaking, it’s clearly a bedrock principle of the administration. President Donald Trump has referred to himself as “the fertilization president” and floated pro-natalist policies that would direct cash bonuses to mothers after the births of each child.

The administration has made clear that not all families are equal. Project 2025 — the Heritage Foundation’s 900-plus-page guidebook for the administration’s speedrun into authoritarianism — encouraged all levels of government to manipulate their services to prioritize married heterosexual, cisgendered couples.

“Married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them,” Project 2025 declared. Elsewhere, it implores the Department of Health and Human Services to “prioritize married father engagement in its messaging, health, and welfare policies.” It attacks TANF on the grounds that it has supposedly failed to prioritize “[m]arriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy.”

Today, “Creating Gender” and the 380 other books the Naval Academy removed from Nimitz Library are now inaccessible to patrons. The full list represents a bizarre collection of books that appear to be identified based on keywords.

Reporting in The New York Times and elsewhere has described the book purge as tied to a Jan. 29 executive order that seeks to end “radical indoctrination” in kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms. The Naval Academy, a college, thought it was exempt from the order, but the Times reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office told the Naval Academy that the secretary “expected compliance” from the military academies, too.

These authoritarian outbursts have much deeper roots.

That same executive order also called for the revival of Trump’s 1776 Commission, a committee that he formed during his first term to support “patriotic education.” (Curiously, the list of removed titles even includes a book from one of the commission’s former membersCarol Swain, author of the 2004 book “The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration.”)

“We’ve said goodbye to the harmful effects of woke culture and so-called diversity, equity and inclusion programs. We’re removing DEI content,” Secretary Hegseth said during a visit to the Army War College in April.

It isn’t clear why the Naval Academy was the first to conduct these removals, but other institutions of higher education within the Defense Department appear prepared to implement similar processes.

The head of the Naval War College recently announced to community members in an email that there were plans to form a committee consisting of faculty and Defense Department officials to assess how to conduct similar removals, according to two sources who received the email and who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity, over concerns of professional retaliation. The sources said that it was unclear who specifically would be on the committee, and officials have not announced when this process would begin. A spokesperson for the Naval War College did not respond to our request for comment regarding whether such removals were going to be implemented at the school.

“I think the bans are appalling,” Lynne Rienner, whose eponymous publishing house released “Creating Gender” in 2007, told us. The book was one of four titles that Lynne Rienner Publishers released from academics that the academy purged.

“It will not have a chilling effect on what we’re willing to publish. I’m concerned that it will have a chilling effect on academic research to the extent that people are dependent on federal funding for their research. And we’re already seeing that,” Rienner added.

We reached out to the Defense Department and the Naval Academy for comment regarding the purges and “Creating Gender’s” removal, specifically. A spokesperson from Hegseth’s office referred us to the Navy. When we followed up with a quote from Hegseth’s recent appearance at the Army War College, as well as a link to a Times article, which previously reported that the decision to remove the books arose from an order from the defense secretary’s office, the spokesperson said, “We don’t have anything additional to provide at this time.” The spokesperson again referred us to Navy officials.

Naval Academy media relations did not respond to a list of several questions related to the purges.

These book removals might seem in line with the Trump movement’s obsession with “trolling” liberals or punishing institutions of higher education for being insufficiently deferential to conservatives. He and his supporters have spoken openly about their attacks on colleges, universities, museums and cultural landmarks as being rooted in the misguided belief that they are victims.

But to us, these authoritarian outbursts have much deeper roots. For all the fawning pieces outlining the right’s “intellectual vitalism” in the second Trump era, the movement’s full-throttled embrace of censorship and hostility to its perceived enemies is indicative of a deep lack of curiosity about the world.

While graduates like Adm. James Stockdale might have read Karl Marx at the Naval Academy in the 1960s to understand an ideology the U.S. government saw as enemy No. 1, they at least read his books. Today’s petty authoritarians see no such need.

Hannah Gais

Hannah Gais is a journalist and researcher focused on the radical right. She is a frequent contributor to The Baffler.

Cathy Johnson

Cathy Johnson is a James Phinney Baxter III Professor of Political Science, Emerita, at Williams College.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

USTR proposing new tariffs of at least 10% for most trading partners

Published

on

USTR proposing new tariffs of at least 10% for most trading partners

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is in a hurry to rebuild the tariff wall the Supreme Court tore down less than four months ago.

The administration this week has proposed slapping double-digit tariffs on products from dozens of major U.S. trading partners after an investigation into imports of goods allegedly made with forced labor. And more tariffs are likely coming.

Under the proposal released in Washington late Tuesday, 16 economies — including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Taiwan and the United Kingdom — would face 10% levies for allegedly failing to enforce bans on forced labor. Another 44 trading partners — including China, Japan, India, South Korea and Switzerland — would be hit with 12.5% import taxes.

The tariffs are part of Trump’s push to replace revenue lost when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sweeping global tariffs he’d imposed last year. This latest barrage is likely to unsettle key trading partners that have been hit with waves of tariffs since Trump returned to the White House early last year.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labor is unacceptable,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “This creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field.’’

Greer’s office said failure to prevent such imports is “unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.”

Trump’s tariffs are paid by U.S. importers who usually try to pass along those higher costs to customers.

The administration, mindful that Americans are growing increasingly unsettled by high prices with midterm elections just months away, said that it would limit the impact by exempting from the latest proposed tariffs a long list of products, including aircraft parts, food products (from coffee to beef) and rare earth minerals crucial in the production of smartphones and cars. Also spared would be products from Canada and Mexico covered by a North American trade pact.

The new tariffs would not take effect immediately. They are subject to public comment and review. Public hearings on the proposed duties are due to begin on July 7.

The plan drew immediate pushback. A Chinese government spokesperson denied the forced labor allegation and called for resolving economic issues through dialogue, saying a trade war doesn’t serve anyone’s interests.

“There is no such thing as forced labor in China, and we oppose using it as an excuse to engage in political manipulation,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said in Beijing.

The U.S. has long said imports of goods that include material from China’s far-western Xinjiang are at risk of using forced labor. Beijing denies allegations of forced labor in the Muslim majority region.

But critics saw the proposed tariffs as a pretext to reinstate tariffs on dozens of countries across the globe that hadn’t passed legal muster.

“Accusing EU of not doing enough against forced labour is absurd,″ Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee, posted on social media. “The EU has adopted the world’s most stringent rules against products made with forced labour. This looks very much like trying to make the facts fit a legal justification for tariffs that has already been decided.″

The new maneuver shows how determined the Trump administration is about keeping a wall of tariffs around the American economy, the world’s largest, despite repeated setbacks in court.

In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose double-digit tariffs on almost every country on Earth last year. The justices struck down the tariffs and set the stage for companies who paid them to seek refunds.

After the loss in court, Trump turned to another law to impose temporary 10% tariffs globally. But those stopgap levies expire July 24. And a specialized trade court ruled last month that they, too, were illegal – though the government can continue collecting them while that case works its way through the courts.

Trump’s tariffs have provided tens of billions of dollars in revenue for a federal government that persistently spends more than it collects in taxes. He had been counting on the IEEPA tariffs to make up for some of the revenue lost to his massive 2025 tax cuts.

But tariff collections have begun to fall since the legal defeats. They peaked at more than $31 billion last October but were down to $22 billion in both March and April of this year, according to the Treasury Department.

Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have vowed to replace the lost revenue. And they’ve turned to a legal authority that has withstood legal challenges in the past: Section 301 of Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices. Trump used Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term.

“What’s somewhat brilliant about this way of approaching 301 is that politically it’s very hard to argue that you shouldn’t go after forced labor and force countries to enforce forced labor laws on the books,’’ said trade lawyer Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his government will soon introduce legislation on forced labor in supply chains. “Canada has a very strong legislative regime against forced labor in supply chains,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa. “We don’t want any element of forced labor coming in goods and services, and we want to use our influence to eliminate this practice of forced labor and child labor.”

In its nearly 100-page report on forced labor, the USTR said that even if a country enforces a ban on forced labor domestically, importing goods made with forced labor violates the rules of fair trade.

Majerus expects to the new tariffs to be ready by the time the temporary ones expire next month. “The USTR is under enormous pressure to make sure there’s no gap (in tariff revenue), probably from the White House,’’ he said. ”I’m confident, based on the schedule they’re on now, that they will have these done and ready to implement.’’ He noted that the investigation on forced labor is “working at about two times the normal speed’’ of typical 301 cases.

The administration is also pursuing a Section 301 case into whether 16 U.S. trading partners (accounting for 70% of U.S. imports) — including China, the EU and Japan — are overproducing goods, driving down prices and putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage.

And on Monday the administration proposed 25% Section 301 tariffs on Brazilcharging that the world’s 10th-biggest economy with “unreasonable’’ trade practices including lax anti-corruption enforcement and unfair tariffs of its own.

Tuesday’s report defined forced labor as “work or service exacted from a person under the menace of any penalty for its nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily.”

It cited an estimate by the UN’s International Labor Organization that as of 2021, 27.6 million people were engaged in forced labor.

Rice imported from Myanmar, tobacco from Malawi, beef from Brazil, and cotton and polysilicon from China were among the many products it said are prone to involving forced labor.

___

Elaine Kurtenbach reported from Bangkok.

Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this story.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

AP source says George Santos reported to prosecutors over suspicious Kalshi trades

Published

on

AP source says George Santos reported to prosecutors over suspicious Kalshi trades

NEW YORK (AP) — A prediction market reported former U.S. Rep. George Santos to federal prosecutors after he boasted he’d be going to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, then bet against his own attendance, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

Kalshithe online prediction marketplace, referred Santos to the Department of Justice after detecting suspicious trades made by him ahead of Trump’s Feb. 24 speech, the person said. The person spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Kalshi also reported the trades to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal regulatory body that has vowed to crack down on insider trading in prediction marketplaces.

The Justice Department and the CFTC didn’t immediately respond Tuesday to inquiries from the AP.

Santos also did not respond to text messages or phone calls.

The referral was first reported by NPR. Santos told NPR that he wasn’t aware of the investigation. He declined to say whether he had a Kalshi account.

“I’m not saying yes, I’m not saying no,” Santos told NPR.

The convicted ex-congressman had repeatedly discussed his intention to attend the State of the Union, which came just four months after he was granted clemency by Trump in a fraud case that led to his expulsion from the U.S. House.

On the eve of Trump’s speech, Kalshi put the odds of Santos attending at close to 75%.

Then, minutes into the speech, Santos posted on X that he had been waylaid at the airport. Immediately, several social media users accused him of running another scheme.

“Santos talking to his accountant and telling him to open his Kalshi account and bet all his money on No,” one user wrotealongside a meme of Al Pacino counting money in the movie Scarface.

In March, Santos addressed the complaints on his podcast.

“I guess people lost money,” he said. “Some people made unexpected money. That’s to show you how fragile these markets are.”

Santos, who won office as a Republican after inventing a bogus persona as a Wall Street dealmaker, was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft in 2024.

After serving just 84 days, he was ordered released by Trump, who called Santos a “rogue” but said he didn’t deserve a harsh sentence and should get credit for voting Republican.

Prediction markets, including Kalshi and its chief rival Polymarket, have drawn scrutiny as their businesses have expanded — with some lawmakers urging the platforms to do more to guard against insider trading.

Both companies have said they are reporting suspicious trades to federal regulators. Some investigations have led to criminal charges. In April a soldier involved in the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was charged with using classified information to win more than $400,000 predicting the date of his capture on Polymarket.

In April, the Senate approved a bipartisan resolution to prevent its own members from using prediction markets.

___

The story has been updated to correct in the first sentence that Santos is a former congressman, not a current one.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

With Trump in a holding pattern on Iran war, allies worry he risks getting boxed in

Published

on

With Trump in a holding pattern on Iran war, allies worry he risks getting boxed in

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trumpis facing warnings from foes and allies alike that he’s getting boxed in on the Iran wasa conflict he sold as a brief military incursion but that has since settled into a holding pattern.

It’s been nearly a week since U.S. and Iranian negotiators reached a tentative agreementto extend the ceasefirein the conflict by 60 days and start a new round of talks on Iran’s nuclear programthat required Trump’s sign off.

But Trump has called for unspecified changes to the agreement and Iranian officials — perhaps calculating that the Republican president is reluctant to restart the bombardment after burning through key weapons systems— are showing no signs they’ll give in to new demands.

A series of strikes by the U.S. and Iranthis week has raised fresh concern that the ceasefire could collapse. Trump on Wednesday downplayed the significance.

“It’s a different part of the world,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “You know, I’d say in that part of the world, a ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner.”

The shaky moment follows repeated claims by Trump since a 14-day ceasefirewas agreed to on April 7 — following 38 days of U.S. and Israel bombing of Iran — that a deal is just days away and the Iranian side is begging to come to a settlement. Trump on Wednesday said it was possible something could come together “over the weekend.”

Without an interim settlement in place to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,global energy prices remain elevatedand are adding to anxieties around the world about the impact of rising costs spurred by the three-month conflict on the cost of food, fuel and other goods.

After a string of reports this week that Iran was shutting down talks,Trump told CNBC he “couldn’t care less” if the negotiations had bogged down and even mused they had become “boring.”

There’s anxiety Trump is getting boxed in

There’s growing concern inside the administration and among key advisers and allies that Trump now finds himself in a bind, according to a U.S. official and another person familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations, both of whom spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

He’s buffeted by Democrats seizing on oil prices and warnings from hawkish members of his basethat an early exit from the conflict would amount to capitulation.

Trump is privately hearing from other Republican lawmakers as well as Pentagon officials and Gulf allies that a return to the bombing campaign is a bad idea.

Those advising against returning to military action note that the U.S. has burned through munitions at too fast of a rate. It could take three years to replenish some key weapons systems.

Meanwhile, Gulf allies are worried that Iran will retaliate against them and their critical infrastructure and energy interests and further set back their economies.

At the same time, Trump has bristled at the idea of accepting a deal that resembles the 2015 nuclear agreementbrokered by Democrat Barack Obama’s administration, which restricted Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting international economic sanctions.

Trump during his first term abandoned the pactthat he said had failed to permanently stop Iran’s nuclear program, ignored Iran’s ballistic missile development, and did not penalize Iran for supporting militant proxy groups across the Middle East.

Now, Trump, according to those familiar with internal deliberations, has made clear he feels strongly he can’t make “a bad deal” and is acutely aware that he’s at a moment where he’s at risk of tarnishing his legacy if he missteps.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly dismissed the notion that Trump has been boxed in or that there’s any concern within the administration about the pace of talks.

“These mysterious so-called ‘administration officials’ have no idea what they’re talking about — those actually involved in sensitive discussions know to trust in President Trump, who will always do what is best for U.S. national security,” Kelly said in a statement.

Trump resisted Israel push for Lebanon bombings

Israeli and hawkish allies in Washington have made the case to Trump that a deal at this point would amount to unconditional surrender, urging him to ratchet up economic pressure on Iran and back Israel’s assault on the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon.

But Trump earlier this week in a heated call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded Israel stand down, and on Wednesday, Israel and Lebanon said they agreed to renew a ceasefire. Hezbollah was not part of the Israel-Lebanon talks, which have been held at the ambassadorial level in Washington since the beginning of last month.

Remaining in the current status quo with Tehran — neither a full resumption of hostilities nor sealing an interim agreement to restart nuclear talks — is a situation that Iran appears better poised to exploit, argues Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the hawkish Washington think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Despite being the weaker party, Iran appears to be calculating that the longer the holding pattern lasts, the better the chances are they can “box in” Trump, he added.

“Either way, Tehran appears more resolute than ever to not provide Trump with a victory image, hence why it isn’t budging on the battlefield or negotiating table,” Taleblu said.

Holding pattern isn’t helpful for Republicans on the ballot

At the same time, Democrats are trying to capitalize on Trump’s handling of the unpopular warahead of November’s midterm elections. The House of Representatives on Wednesday for the first time passed a symbolic resolution calling for a haltin military action against Iran, with four Republican lawmakers joining Democrats in the rebuke of Trump’s war.

During hours of hearings on Capitol Hillon Tuesday and Wednesday with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Democrats laced into Trump for discounting the economic impact of the conflict on Americans and for failing to anticipate that Iran would shutter the Strait.

In one tense exchange, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker pointed to the unsteady ceasefire as a sign that Iran has the upper hand.

“We are the strongest nation on the planet Earth, and we’re in a stalemate with Iran,” Booker said. “And now we’re begging to get back into a deal that you all trashed in the first place.”

Rubio dismissed the criticism, underscoring that Iran has been placed on its heels with the strikes that have taken out multiple layers of senior leadership and left Iran’s economy in shambles.

“There’s no one begging,” Rubio responded. “I don’t know where you’re getting this perception that Iran is stronger.”

Another Democrat, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, homed in on Trump’s comments last month that voter anxiety about the cost of living was “not even a little bit” of a motivating factor for him to reach a deal to end the war.

The president continues to downplay the rising costs for Americans at the pump and predict that gas prices would fall sharply after the conflict ends.

Christopher Borick, the director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Pennsylvania, said that Democrats running in swing districts around the country are already zeroing in on Trump’s rhetoric on the war’s impact on Americans’ pocketbooks.

“There’s significant risk in having this thing drag on for Republicans,” Borick said. “It’s certainly going to hurt if Trump ends up in a place where the war ends and Iran’s nuclear program is in the same place. But for Republicans in some of these tough swing districts, there’s a case to be made to rip the bandage off now, get some easing in the oil markets and hope there’s enough time for voters to turn the page.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending