reflectivepundit

When Fear and Courage Matter

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In the spring of 2016, when Donald Trump led the field of Republican presidential contenders, he told the journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, “Real Power is—I don’t even want to use the word—fear.

Lately, I have thought of that quote a lot.

When I saw the horrific images of masked and hooded guys grabbing a Tuft University foreign student, handcuffing and forcing her into an unmarked car. Or when the news reports that the Department of Justice and the President of the United States ignore District Court and Supreme Court rulings to bring back to the U.S. a Latino man who was deported by the Department of Homeland Security to a high security prison in El Salvador because of an “administrative mistake.”  In both cases and a rapidly increasing number of other instances, the constitutional due process rights of people were violated. Their “crime” in the eyes of Trump’s MAGA regime are protests in the form of written or spoken words—both guaranteed rights in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Stoking fear is the point. What else could we make of the Secretary of Homeland Security standing in front of the El Salvador prison warning undocumented immigrants to leave the U.S. voluntarily or otherwise end up in a hell hole like this.

Trump and his sidekick Elon Musk also use the fear factor to decimate the federal civil service, disable literally all departments of the executive branch, and threaten members of the GOP majority in both congressional chambers with primary challenges to kill even the slightest opposition to presidential directions.  

So, Trump uses power ruthlessly to cause fear and then exploits fear to gain what he calls “real power.” One could also call it dictatorial power.

Within the first 100 days of Trump’s second presidency, there have been many strongman orders and many who accepted them. In certain cases, such as in Germany under Hitler, police and paramilitary squads used deadly violence to silence any dissent. But that is not the case here. Not now. Thus, there are still choices to be made.

I think of the big law firms that represented prominent Democrats as clients and therefore were threatened by an executive order issued by Trump which would have banned attorneys of these legal giants from entering federal buildings, including court houses—a certain road to bankruptcy. Several settled with Trump promising each $100 Mill. in pro bono work for uncontroversial causes both sides agreed on. Columbia University, threatened with losing some $400 million in federal research grants, agreed to several administration demands that curtailed academic freedom at the private university. But there was no final settlement.

However, when Harvard University was threatened by the Trump administration with far more draconian oversight of all important aspects of academic life, the oldest American university refused to accept and thereby risked $2 billion in federal grants and contracts. As Harvard President Alan Garber wrote, “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. Doing otherwise would threaten the values of any private university “devoted to the pursuit, production and dissemination of knowledge.”

Harvard’s example and that of several law firms who went to court challenging Trump’s executive order and winning their first legal rounds are profiles in courage compared to the otherwise widely complicit behavior of all kinds of influential leaders in the corporate world and elsewhere.  

But Harvard’s resistance might encourage others. Columbia University’s acting President Claire Shipman, wrote in a campus email that she “read with great interest the message from Harvard refusing the federal government’s demands.” And she promised, “We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire. And yes, to put minds at ease, though we seek to continue constructive dialog with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

For strong and influential institutions and leaders outside of government there are two very different ways to deal with strongmen dictates: one driven by fear and self-interest; the other by courage and risk-taking.   

The Last, Best Hope Against Tyranny? A United—not Divided—Democratic Party

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Joe Biden’s late withdrawal from the 2024 presidential campaign and Kamala Harris’s thin defeat by Donald Trump continue to fuel a never-ending stream of critical analyses inside the Democratic Party and, even more so, among mainstream media commentators and reporters. I am not writing here about the right-extreme on- and off-line news and social media outlets that spent years to convinced King Donald’s subjects that Democrats and Liberals are evil-doers. Rather, my focus is on the mainstream liberal and moderate media and the Democratic Party.

While the party that loses an election deserves autopsies of its long- and short-term failures, the commentariat’s obsession with magnifying real and imagined tactical, strategic, ideological, institutional, and generational divisions inside the Democratic Party has gone over the top. And it has taken attention away from the scary words and deeds of the Musk-Trump regime.

Needed now are cool and courageous heads inside the Democratic Party who recognize that the only opposition party is the last, best hope to organize strong, peaceful, and potent protests against the clear and present danger we are facing today.

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) showed the way last weekend, when they drew huge crowds in Colorado and Arizona. Instead of theorizing about the threat of losing democracy, they talked about the butter-and-bread issues that regular, working people are worried about. Health care, social security, the basic standards of living.

But Bernie’s most important words were his appeals to the utility of unity in times of crises.

Forget about dwelling on whether Chuck Schumer should be replaced as minority leader in the U.S. Senate or whether Nancy Pelosi should refrain from running once again in 2026. Such issues are not the most pressing ones now; they can be addressed inside the party and without public spectacle.

If hundreds-of-thousands of people can come together on the streets of Istanbul to protest their autocratic president’s unjustified arrest of a political opponent, the leadership of the Democratic Party can and should be organizing far greater protests on a regular basis along the lines of Bernie’s and AOC’s mass demonstrations last weekend.

Is Today’s America Still a Democracy?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In his latest column in the New York Times titled “Democracy Is on the Line in Israel and America,” Thomas Friedman wrote, “Are we seeing the slow-motion collapse of the rule of law in the United States and Israel at the same time?”  It is too early to answer that question, but it is no longer too early to ask it.”

I am sure that James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers and the fourth U.S. President, would not merely ask but also answer the two questions Friedman raised in the headline and first paragraph of his commentary—certainly with respect to the United States.

As Madison wrote in Federalist #47,

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

He added that “the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.”

Today, President Trump is firmly in charge of the legislative branch while threatening judges who are ruling against the daily abuse of power by the White House and other administration officials.

The Republican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate are not “separate and distinct” but obedient pawns of the president. By willingly and enthusiastically handing over their constitutional powers to the executive, they are abandoning their role as the “first branch of government.”

Unlike the congressional GOP, some members of the judicial branch—judges and prosecutors-- have resisted interference by the president’s eager servants. More recently, the ruling clique has not merely threatened to fight non-compliant judges but disregarded and acted contrary to their rulings. Last weekend, the Homeland Security Department deported alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, although a U.S. judge had blocked the removal. Similarly, a Lebanese professor at Brown University was deported in defiance of a court order to halt her deportation.

The so-called Border Czar Tom Homan, said on FOX News, “I don’t care what judges think…I’m proud to be a part of this administration. We’re not stopping.”

Since the courageous judges do not have the means to enforce their rulings without the assistance of executive departments, the president and his administration are now paralyzing independent judges and rely on loyalists in the judiciary to support their cause.

The triple separation of power designed by the Framers of the Constitution to safeguard liberty and justice--and thus democracy—is crumbling within the first 100 days of Trump’s second term.

 

King Don’s Court Prefers Complicit Reporters

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In the new White House order, the best and brightest political reporters representing the legacy press have lost their advantage to asking questions as part of the so-called press pool which has a limited and rotating number of wire, print, and television reporters. Traditionally, the pool members are selected by the White House Correspondents’ Association and share their first-hand observations with other White House reporters with both sides trusting each other.

All this changed eight days ago, when the White House announced that it would take control of the selection of pool members. Just as far-right online and television channels were regularly called on by Trump’s press secretary in the early weeks of his second term, they now are part and parcel of the press pool during events that allow only a limited number of reporters. This now prominent clique of MAGA courtiers mimics and promotes the narcissistic traits of their idol who strives to be king.

Take last Friday’s “made for television” assault on Ukraine’s president Zelensky by President Trump and his sidekick Vice-President JD Vance. After Trump himself had greeted Zelensky earlier with the loud remark directed towards the press, “He’s all dressed up today…,” a reference to Zelensky’s usual field uniform in support of his forces fighting Russia’s invading army, a pool “journalist,” asked the Ukrainian president, “Why don’t you wear a suit? You’re at the highest level in this country’s office, and you refuse to wear a suit. Just want to see if…do you own a suit? A lot of Americans have problems with you not respecting the office.”

As it happened, this White House selected pool member represented a far-right cable channel with a history of conspiracy theories. He played his role to the full satisfaction of those who selected him over reporters who understand the crucial role of the press in a democracy—among them the Associate Press wire service. Note, that no far-right or any other White House reporter has asked Elon Musk during his repeated performances in the Oval Office why he did not wear a suit. Presumably, they all know that President Trump would not like such a question.

Even more shocking was the presence of a man working for the Russian government wire service TASS among pool reporters during the pro-Russian rhetorical assault on Zelensky. The White House claimed later that the guy was not approved for the pool and removed once his presence became known.

That is not credible. Whoever has been in the White House as member of a foreign press outlet knows that nobody without secret service clearance and security checks all along gets near or into the Oval Office. In this case, another pool reporter observed that White House officials, who reviewed reporters’ credential before allowing them to enter the Oval Office, waived the TASS reporter in. Thus, a journalist representing and paid by the Russian government attended the event that a Kremlin spokesperson characterized later as demonstrating that both governments have “coinciding visions.”

The Trump/Putin Peace Initiative: Are NATO Allies and Ukraine Sold Down the River?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In his book “Time to Get Tough: Make America Great Again” Donald J. Trump presented the principles of a “credible foreign policy” in seven bullet points. The third principle stated, “Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.” Never mind what he or his ghostwriters wrote and he said years ago. In the first few weeks of his second presidency, Trump has shown no loyalty to the dependable Western allies and no suspicion but rather friendship to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The president’s announcement that he and Putin will meet in Saudi-Arabia to negotiate a Russian-Ukraine peace arrangement sold NATO allies and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky down the river. Zelensky and NATO leaders were informed after Trump and Putin had spoken and found out that they would not be part of the peace negotiations.

The White House did not reveal what the president promised Putin at the expense of Ukraine. But one of his talking heads, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, told European leaders that Ukraine would not get back all the territory Russian captured since 2014. He also nixed the idea of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO and excluded US participation in a possible European peace force between Russia and Ukraine. In short, the U.S. gave away the store before the peace negotiations started. Moscow celebrated the good friendship between the strong Russian and strong American leader.

During his visit at NATO headquarters Hegseth told the allies furthermore that they could no longer count on the full commitment of the U.S. because, as he put is, the “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.” The Associated Press reported on this today under the headline, “NATO is in disarray after the US announces that its security priorities lie elsewhere.”

Ultimately, what is playing out now may well transcend the relationships between the U.S., NATO, and Putin.

With Putin leader no longer kept in line by a NATO lead by the U.S., he may act on other territorial ambitions sometime in the future. Trump has his own expansion plans that are no longer laughing matters: He continues to threaten Canada that it must become the 51^st US state, Denmark to hand over Greenland, and Panama to give the Panama Canal back to the United States.

Und China’s Xi’s design for Taiwan is no secret.

Strongmen tend to admire each other’s forceful and ruthless words and deeds. As fantastic it may seem at first sight, the reality of today’s line-up of dominating leaders could result in a new imperialistic world order in which super-strongmen Trump, Putin, and Xi each get and dominate their own sphere of interest.   

The drumbeat of shocking actions inside the U.S. has dominated the news since Trump returned to the Oval Office. That may explain, why there is not much attention in the news to the rapidly changing realities in international relations that could eventually prove as harmful as the domestic challenges.

Similarities and Differences between Car Pioneers Henry Ford and Elon Musk

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford Motor Company, had the foresight to produce the first automobile that was affordable for the middle class. But the successful industrialist, who became one of the wealthiest persons of his time, was also a staunch antisemite. To spread anti-Jewish biases, he purchased in The Dearborn Independent, for which he wrote a series of conspiratorial articles about the so-called global Jewish threat. After some of those racist articles were published in book-form and translated into several foreign languages, Germany’s Adolf Hitler made no secret of his admiration for Ford’s anti-Jewish tracts. Indeed, in 1938 Hitler awarded Ford with the “Grand Cross of the German Eagle,” Germany’s highest award for foreigners.

A century later, Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla Motors, had the foresight to build electric vehicles that were applauded for their environmental benefits. Once he became the richest man in the world, Musk bought the social media platform Twitter and altered it into a far-right online media named X that did not fact-check certain hate speech. The day Trump was inaugurated, Musk used the “Heil Hitler” salute in his appearance before a celebrating MAGA crowd. Six days later, he gave his explicit support to the neo-Nazi Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD) Party in Germany declaring in his virtual speech that it was time for Germany to “move on” from “past guilt.” His listeners understood what he meant, namely, that the German people should simply forget about the holocaust and the death of six million Jews during Hitler’s Third Reich.  

Henry Ford was a politically influential player in the first decades of the 20^th century. But neither Ford nor any other unelected person was ever given so much direct decision-making power as Musk got within the first two weeks of the Trump regime. That was his award for donating $277 million to the Trump campaign 2024.

The other day, it was reported that Musk and his minions gained unprecedented access to the Treasury Department’s records of the recipients of government payments. One can only assume that this is a key to the work of his imaginary Department of Government Efficiency and/or the new rule of revenge in the administration. The abrupt closing of the USAID agency’s headquarters and its work around the world is also part of the executive power grabs at the expense of the legislative branch.

The Republican majorities in both houses of the Congress are on their knees and not willing to defend their constitutional roles. Many are happy sycophants; others know better but are afraid of MAGA’s revenge against anyone not 100 percent behind the authoritarian rule of the oligarchs.

Those, who criticize congressional Democrats for not fighting what is unfolding, forget the restrictive role of the minority. It is only, when the negative consequences of the just started tariff war and other ill-advised policies of the current administration hit home in the electorate, that Democrats can and must blame those who caused the dilemmas to come…

Musk’s “Heil Hitler” Salute and Trump’s Pardoning of January 6th Terrorists

By Brigitte L. Nacos

I am old enough to remember Germans greeting each other saying ‘Heil Hitler” while raising their arms in the Roman or fascist salute. Not doing so, could and in fact did result in somebody reporting them as possible dissidents to the Nazi leader and his regime.

Today, “Heil Hitler is chanted and the raised arm salute displayed by neo-Nazis and White Supremacist here and abroad in their on- and offline gatherings.

Yesterday, as I watched Donald J. Trump’s coronation on television, nothing shocked me more than the behavior of richest man in the world, Elon Musk: While he addressed a jubilant MAGA crowd in Washington DC’s Capitol One Arena, he pounded his chest and then raised his arm in the fascist way screaming “Yes” and then turned around so that the people behind him could see his fascist salute as well.

This public spectacle by Trump’s most generous campaign benefactor and primary advisor came a few hours before the once-again president signed the executive order granting pardons to his supporters who attacked the US Capitol and police officers on January 6, 2021 to keep Trump in power.

Among the 1,200 or so men and women are the leaders of paramilitary groups, such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, whose members acted during and after Trump’s first presidency as “body guards” at MAGA events. They will soon be free to carry weapons and carry out political violence without fearing law enforcement interference.

This presidential decision did not come as a surprise. Trump promised all through his campaign that he would free all what he called “political prisoners” or “hostages.” Many of these people may never attack police officers again or commit other violent acts.

 But the hardcore members of the para-military groups will be soon available to move in their violent ways against former and present critics of Trump and his regime.

Autocratic leaders having paramilitaries at their disposal like Hitler had his vicious SS stormtroopers, is a sure sign that such strongmen can and probably will circumvent the normal law enforcement and judicial processes to move against their perceived enemies.

If the first hours of the second Trump presidency are guideposts for what will follow in the days, months, and years ahead, I pray for our democracy.

Strongman al-Assad is Gone. What Now?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

During the last decade, the al-Qaeda related al-Nusra Front was in Syria a minor player in comparison to what was for several years the far larger ISIS organization. Like anyone else following the news, I was surprised by the rapid fall of Syria’s strongman Bashar al-Assad last weekend. I was far more surprised by the leading role that al-Nusra’s successor group Hayat Tahir al-Sham (HTS) played in the rebellion against Assad.

What now? HTS is among those entities that are designated terrorist organizations in the U.S., the United Kingdom, and other Western countries. HTS leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani is among Washington’s most wanted terrorists with a $10 Mill. reward for information that would lead his arrest.

HTS and al-Jolani seem in control of Damascus, other big cities, and a big chunk of Syrian real estate. According to their Telegram channel and in public declarations they try to keep enough of the institutions of government working so that the country does not suffer the same fate as others after the fall of their authoritarian rulers. Just think what happened in Iraq and in Libya after the fall of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi—endless civil wars between a multitude of factions.

For several years now, al-Jolani has denounced al-Qaeda’s global terrorist agenda and instead embraced the liberation of Syria from the strongman Assad rule as his and his group’s only objective. Today, in Damascus, he dropped his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani and reclaimed his real name Ahmed al-Shara—I suppose to signal his change from terrorist to a now celebrated freedom fighter.

Whether one believes that this man has changed or not, he is now perhaps the most important player in efforts to prevent another horrific consequence in the wake of another strongman’s fall from power. To that end, I understand why London, Paris, and Washington are considering the removal of HTS from their lists of terrorist organizations which would facilitate diplomatic contacts with the new power holder in Damascus.

Initially, at least, there are signs of a swift cooperation between the victorious rebels and high officials of the al-Assad government. The first goal is to establish and maintain order and security. The HTS leader has asked bureaucrats and police to return to work.

Making progress domestically will depend also on the role of former government officials and all kinds of professionals who are now returning from abroad ready to join in the rebuilding of a stable state and one in which the rights of ethnic and religious minorities are assured.

It will be difficult for Ahmed al-Shara to keep the various groups involved in the rebellion united.

What neighboring countries and the international community of nations can and will do and what the fall of strongman Assad means for the new geopolitical realities in the Middle East and the rest of the world, poses another set of questions without definitive answers.

After Biden Pardoned his Son Critics Go Bananas

By Brigitte L. Nacos

President Joe Biden said repeatedly that he would not pardon his son Hunter. At a time, when America’s democracy was under sustained attack by the incoming president and the far-right cast he has selected for key positions in his administration, Biden’s promise spoke to his respect for democratic institutions, including the system of justice.  

Biden changed his mind. Last weekend, he granted his son a total pardon for a more than 10-year period. That same weekend, president-elect Trump nominated his son-in-law’s father, Charles Kushner, to serve as ambassador to France. In 2020, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, a convicted felon; at the same time, a bunch of criminally convicted Trump associates were pardoned as well. More recently, Trump promised repeatedly that he would pardon the “political prisoners” convicted for violent crimes during the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol “on day one” of his second term as president.

Although Trump used his constitutional pardon power excessively, critics claim that Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter makes it more likely that Trump will expand this veto power even further in his second term. Nonsense. Trump does not need a precedent. He makes his extreme rules as he goes along.  

While there was no outcry against Trump’s nomination of a family member with a criminal record for a top ambassadorship, Trump himself, many Republicans and Democrats, plus plenty of media commentators went bananas after the news broke that Biden pardoned his son.

“Biden was dishonest,” “Biden lied,” were common headlines and comments in the news. The chorus of critics grew and became louder every day. Where was and is the same outrage, the same anger, when Donald Trump lies day-in and day-out? Whereas being dishonest is mostly ignored when it applies to Trump, Biden is held to a higher standard for this one lie even by those who accept and embrace their Dear Leader’s perennial aversion to truth.

According to Biden’s critics, the president’s claim that Hunter was prosecuted because he was his son, is in tune with Trump’s hostility against the justice system that the former president considers part of “the deep state.” But unlike Trump during his presidency, President Biden did not interfere with judicial decisions—and not with the prosecutions of his son who was found guilty of tax evasion and falsely filling out an application form for his gun permit during a time, when he was an alcohol- and drug addict.  

A good guess is that the real reason for Biden’s turnaround on pardoning Hunter was the nomination of Kash Patel for the position of FBI director. Patel, like his idol Trump, has been tireless in pledging retribution for the alleged but not real persecution of President Trump by the FBI and the Department of Justice. The Bidens are on top of the MAGA reprisal list followed by many other leading Democrats, “disloyal” former members of the Trump administration, and critical media personalities.

What parents would not use their legal power to protect their son from a future power holder who has threatened a “bloodbath,” when talking about the existential fight against the “enemy within” and the public execution of his most evil enemies?

Donald Trump’s Rush to Strongman Rule

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Donald Trump’s nominations of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of Intelligence, and Matt Gaetz for Attorney General drove the reality home that the former and future U.S. president follows his fascist campaign rhetoric and the equally undemocratic “Project 25” playbook as he selects the supporting cast for his second presidency.

Trump did not hide his sinister plans during his campaign. On the contrary. He repeated, again and again, that he and his MAGA crowd were in an existential battle against the demonic “enemy within” which he attacked as more dangerous than foreign enemies. Thus, the alleged “deep state” of “liberals, socialists, and communists” had to be destroyed to make way for the MAGA revolution.

Trump added to his many lies, when he claimed no knowledge of “Project 25” during the campaign. Now, he and his transition team and some authors of the detailed blueprint for the deconstruction of the administrative state are hard at work to implement the prescription for building a government in which the Dear Leader has total power.

I know that the term “fascist” is over- and misused. Trump, like other fascists before him, called his alleged enemies frequently fascists in the latter part of the campaign. Now, we see unmistakable signs of a coming fascist state here in the United States of America.

The main characteristic of fascism is that all powers are in the hands of the leader. In this case only people totally loyal to Donald Trump, not to the U.S. Constitution, have been and will be appointed to and nominated for the highest positions in the administration.

Gaetz, Gabbard, und Hegseth pass this loyalty test with flying colors. The normal qualifications for such positions, namely, expertise, integrity, and independence are completely irrelevant in a fascist regime and thus, now, for Trump and the enablers around him.

Therefore, it does not matter whether the GOP Senators reject one or more of Trump’s nominees. Whoever is not confirmed, will be replaced by another Trump loyalist, who will be equally eager follow Trump’s wishes.     

Fascist leaders leave the legislative and judicial branches in place but do away with the check-and-balance system in which the branches share power. Trump has a compliant Supreme Court in place. The other day, he signaled that he also wants an impotent congress. He demanded that the GOP majority leader in the U.S. Senate must order a recess of the upper chamber which would eliminate the confirmation process altogether in a violation of the “consent and advice” role of the Senate.  

Fascist leaders do not accept term limits. They want to be leaders for life. Yesterday, Trump told GOP members in the House of Representatives, “I suspect I won’t be running again—unless you do something. Unless you say, ‘He’s so good, we have to just figure it out.’” Contrary to some reports, this was no joke. Rather, Trump launched a trial balloon that he will eventually follow up with a push to getting rid of the two-term limit.

Less than two weeks after Trump’s election victory and more than two months before his inauguration, the strongman is rapidly consolidating his power.

Once he gets back into the White House, he will be ready and able to implement his extremist policies.