#Truman administration

[deadpresidents]

During the Civil War, the state of Missouri was as divided as the nation itself with half of the state supporting the Union and the other half sympathizing with the Confederacy. While the Show-Me State never seceded or formally joined the Confederacy, it was a slave state, a rebel hotbed, and the very definition of a border state. Throughout the war, Missouri was governed by two competing factions -- a loyal Union government and a shadow Confederate government -- and was effectively a state embroiled by a regional civil war during the national civil war.

The family of Missouri's only President, Harry S. Truman, was decidedly pro-Confederate. While the Civil War was raging, Truman's grandmother's farm was looted and burned by Union troops -- an indignity that Truman's family never forgot. When Truman joined the National Guard in 1905 and visited his grandmother's home in his military uniform, the Southern-sympathizing granny was repelled. "Harry, this is the first time since 1863 that a blue uniform has been in this house. Don't bring it here again!"

Those Confederate beliefs continued to run strong through the Truman family well after the Civil War. Decades later, when Truman was President of the United States, he proudly welcomed his elderly mother, Martha, to the White House. When her son invited her to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, the President's mother -- then in her 90s -- steadfastly refused and said that she would rather sleep on the floor.

[tomorrowusa]

^^^ I'd add to Trump's caption: "We'll see in two weeks."

There are still a few analysts and journalists trying to discern some sort of coherent pattern in Trump's actions. Most people by now understand that there is no Trump consistency apart from personal enrichment, revenge, kowtowing to Putin, and pandering to far right supporters.

[intelligentchristianlady]

What It's Really About

“Our debt to the heroic men and valiant women in the service of our country can never be repaid. They have earned our undying gratitude. America will never forget their sacrifices.”

– President Harry S Truman, April 16, 1945, Address to Congress

[petsincollections]

W. Averell Harriman With Nikita Khrushchev During 1959 Trip to the Soviet Union

Exterior view believed to have been taken in the gardens of the government's guest dacha Ogarevo located west of Moscow, Russia. Nikita Khrushchev is on the left holding a hedgehog found along the path. W. Averell Harriman is on the right and Frol Kozlov and Yuri Zhukov are in the center looking at the hedgehog. Photograph appeared with Harriman article published in Life Magazine, July 13, 1959. Charles W. Thayer accompanied Harriman as a guide and confidant on the trip which took place May 12 - June 26, 1959. Harriman went as a special foreign correspondent for the North American Newspaper Alliance (NANA). Trip visits included Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Yalta, etc., as well as areas in Siberia and the Urals, and ended with a meeting with Nikita Khrushchev. There is a 2x2 original negative. Credit: Photographer: Charles W. Thayer

This item was produced or created on June 23, 1959.

The creator compiled or maintained the parent series, Photographs Relating to the Administration, Family, and Personal Life of Harry S. Truman, between 1957–2023.

National Archives and Records Administration. Office of Presidential Libraries. Harry S. Truman Library. (4/1/1985 - 7/31/2011)

[denimbex1986]

'In this opening stanza of one of my favorite poems, “La Jornada” by Antonia Quintana Pigno, the speaker laments the disastrous effects of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s love affair with New Mexico.

She suggests that her own love affair as a brown woman with the white scientist could have stopped the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic bomb. This poem ran through my mind multiple times as I watched Christopher Nolan’s film Oppenheimer.

Like Nolan’s other films, the depiction of women in Oppenheimer is terrible. In this one, he manages to reduce two scientists—Jean Tatlock, a psychiatrist who was also queer, and Katherine “Kitty” Oppenheimer, a botanist—to a floozy and a drunk who are both in love with Oppie, not to mention that they are two of only four women with significant speaking parts. (The third is also involved in an extra-marital affair with Oppenheimer and the fourth was a Manhattan Project scientist who is depicted as trying to shut down the use of the bomb for war purposes. But I digress.) Quintana Pigno writes lovingly about her “Nuevo Méjico,” but it’s a different love than Oppenheimer had for New Mexico.

Oppenheimer

I could have loved you

wrapped my legs tightly

around your white buttocks

to keep you thinly against me

without desire

for food

for water from mountain streams

for the journey to Jornada del Muerto

for the creation of Trinity

“La Jornada” by Antonia Quintana Pigno

In the summer blockbuster, New Mexico serves as a desolate backdrop to Project Y and the Trinity test. The wind and rain that characterize the wild west that Oppenheimer and other Manhattan Project scientists must tame to build and test the bomb contradicts the querencia most of us have for our high desert homeland, the one that Quintana Pigno writes about. One of my favorite Oppenheimer quotes, which sits as an epigraph to “La Jornada,” features prominently in the film. The original quote, though, is different than the movie version. Oppenheimer once said, “My two great loves are physics and New Mexico. It’s a pity they can’t be combined.” In the film, Oppie says, “When I was a kid, I thought that if I could find a way to combine physics with New Mexico, my life would be perfect.” The truth is that his love for New Mexico, like his other romantic affairs, was disastrous. Who should really be pitied here? The truth is, Oppenheimer knew very little about people in New Mexico because he often went to New Mexico to be alone, that is, until he created a government project that changed the cultural and physical landscape of my ancestors forever.

Those left out of Oppenheimer

With the attention that the film has received, many people have been able to critique how the film leaves out entire populations of people, such as Indigenous communities, downwind communities, and Nuevomexicana/o farmers. It has allowed us to better explain to the world that New Mexico was not uninhabited in the 1940s. In fact, it has been inhabited since time immemorial. In a recent interview, I finally realized that the journalist was unaware of New Mexico’s geography, and I explained to her that Trinity and Los Alamos were 200 miles apart when I finally realized that she did not know this as she asked her questions. Yet another called it “Mexico” but then corrected herself and repeated “New Mexico.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful that we have this chance to explain these things, and I don’t fault people for not knowing the geography of New Mexico. Certainly, the film makes no effort to distinguish the Pajarito Plateau (Los Alamos) from the Tularosa Basin (Trinity site); New Mexico is one amorphous, desolate desert in the film. Nevertheless, this portrayal is just another effect of nuclear colonialism.

After two bombs were used to attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945, news of Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project broke worldwide. Oppie’s face appeared on the November 8, 1948, cover of TIME. As Hollywood magic would have it, Oppenheimer sees his reflection on the magazine cover as he walks into the Oval Office to meet with President Truman in the film. (Oppenheimer resigned from Los Alamos on October 16, 1945, but this inaccuracy with the TIME cover does not actually change much in the film.) It is during this scene that Truman asks Oppenheimer, “I hear you’re leaving Los Alamos. What should we do with it?” To which Oppenheimer responds, “Give it back to the Indians.” Not only is this comment ignorant, but it’s also racist. Oppenheimer and Groves knew who they displaced to institute Project Y; they just didn’t care. Nuevomexicanas/os and Indigenous people, in addition to the Los Alamos Ranch School, were dispossessed from their homes and homelands on the Pajarito Plateau. Not only did they not return the land, but the colonizers never left.

Dealing with the fallout

New Mexicans were left to contend with the lasting effects of the Manhattan Project, including intergenerational trauma, disease and death, contamination, secrecy and obscurity, and environmental racism. In Resolana: Emerging Chicano Dialogues on Community and Globalization by Miguel Montiel, Tomás Atencio, and E.A. “Tony” Mares, Atencio writes about Los Alamos and how northern New Mexico communities have resisted the effects of the Manhattan Project. Atencio writes, “Since the mid-1940s villagers had recognized the dangers of radiation, as men pushing wheelbarrows full of waste in the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) suddenly turned ashen, went home, and died. In the villages, meanwhile, children were dying of leukemia. Despite the evidence from Los Alamos and the knowledge that chemicals, including commercial fertilizer, were polluting the land, we had been told that modern technology would improve nature” (Atencio 27). Stories of family members getting sick or dying because of their work at the Labs are no longer restricted to whispers at kitchen tables, and initiatives to keep traditional knowledge alive and in practice are thriving. Still, other northern New Mexicans, especially, are proud of the work they did and continue to do at the Labs. It’s a conundrum.

In southern New Mexico, the communities surrounding the Trinity site continue to deal with the legacy of illness and death created by the plutonium bomb called the Gadget. New research shows that fallout from the Trinity test reached forty-six states plus Canada and Mexico. A recent New York Times article quotes from the report that “locations in New Mexico where radionuclide deposition reached levels on par with Nevada” from atmospheric nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site. The new study offers support for the ongoing efforts to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include the Trinity downwinders, who are not eligible under the current federal law. Since its establishment in 1990, the RECA fund has paid out over $2 billion; New Mexican downwinders have never been eligible for compensation under RECA.

Our own role in the current nuclear moment

Last week, the US Senate passed a bill to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). This new amendment would include not only New Mexico downwinders, but also it includes post-1971 uranium workers, other downwinders of the Nevada Test Site atmospheric nuclear tests, and downwinders in Guam from testing in and the Pacific Islands. The House must pass their version of this bill now, which is integral before RECA sunsets in 2024. People can call their US Representatives and ask them to support the RECA amendment.

But there is another conversation that has opened recently in New Mexico around the legacy of the nuclear industrial complex. In January 2022, the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, John C. Wester, released a Pastoral Letter, “Living in the Light of Christ’s Peace: A Conversation toward Nuclear Disarmament,” which actually calls for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Suddenly, there is a new conversation happening around the present-day role of nuclear science at the National Laboratories in New Mexico, namely Los Alamos. The National Nuclear Security Administration has tasked Los Alamos with producing a minimum of thirty new plutonium pits per year with a goal of eighty new pits per year between LANL and a second location – the Savannah River Site.

At the end of Oppenheimer, viewers are left questioning the guilt the film’s protagonist might have felt unleashing nuclear weapons into the world. But shouldn’t we also question what role the United States and other nuclear weapons-wielding counties have in the future of nuclear weapons? We must consider how future generations will look back on our nuclear policies and the choices we make. Are nuclear weapons and all their inherent risks and public health impacts a legacy that we really want to pass on?'

[renthony]

Been collecting sources about McCarthyism and the Lavender Scare for work reasons.

I had to take a break from reading somewhere around the mass-purging of federal employees on suspicion of "disloyalty." I started misreading "Truman administration" as "Trump administration" and figured it was time to go do something else for a little while.

[jeffhirsch]

4th Worst Post Inaugural S&P 500 Performance since WWII

Click here to view table full size…

President Trump’s fast and furious pace of change to kick off his second term has created a great deal of uncertainty. Historically, the market has not performed well during periods of uncertainty. Monday, March 10, marked the seven weeks since Inauguration Day and as of the close S&P 500 was down 6.37%, its fourth worst post inaugural performance since 1945. Presidents Obama (2009), W. Bush (2001) and Ford (1974) suffered greater declines through the seventh week.

In the above table we have included the S&P 500’s performance every Inauguration Day since April 12, 1945, when Truman became President following the death of FDR. We also included November 1963, when Johnson took over after JFK was assassinated and Ford in August 1974, following Nixon’s resignation. We use the close on Inauguration Day or the day before when it landed on a holiday like this year. Republican Administrations are shaded in grey.

Seven weeks may be an odd data point to consider but it is consistent with the current time frame. Looking out to 12-Weeks After and 100-Days After, we see an improvement in S&P 500 performance with average, median and frequency of gains improving. Should the market find support, a rebound would be consistent with past post inaugural performance.

[political-us]

“The US economy has since World War II consistently done better under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents. This fact is even less widely known, including among Democratic voters, than the truth about Biden’s term. Indeed, some poll results suggest that more Americans believe the reverse, that Republican presidents are better stewards of the economy than Democrats.

Since World War II, Democrats have seen job creation average 1.7 % per year when in office, versus 1.0 % under the GOP. US GDP has averaged a rate of growth of 4.23 percent per annum during Democratic administrations, versus 2.36 per cent under Republicans, a remarkable difference of 1.87 percentage points. This is postwar data, covering 19 presidential terms—from Truman through Biden. If one goes back further, to the Great Depression, to include Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, the difference in growth rates is even larger.”

[todaysdocument]

Letter from Andrew S. Evans to President Harry S. Truman

Collection HST-OFF: Official Files (Truman Administration)Series: Official FilesFile Unit: Segregation, July 1948-June 1949, OF 93b

3228-Hiatt Pl. N.W.

Wash; 10, DC

June 20, 1949

Dear Mr. President,

I live about three yards from a white playground, yet it is a public school playground. I am a colored boy and not allowed to go on it. All the white boys enjoy playing with me. But I am put off by the adult managers. I am writing you for a consideration because my playground is 4 or 5 blocks away. My parents are afraid of me being hit by cars. I am eleven yrs. old. Please answer.

Sincerely,

Andrew S. Evans

[added by hand in pencil "6 child's letter" "93-B" 'X93 miscel"]

[deadpresidents]

"To hell with them. When history is written they will be the sons of bitches -- not I."

-- President Harry S. Truman, on his political opponents, personal diary entry, December 1, 1952

[dadsinsuits]

Lewis B. Schwellenbach

[tomorrowusa]

The Trump administration, less than 110 days old, has seen a disproportionate number of air safety issues. On the civilian side, Elon Musk's DOGE through underlings like Big Balls has fired professionals in the Federal Aviation Administration and raised the stress levels of air traffic controllers. And the military is now run by drunken idiot "Whiskey Pete" Hegseth – with predictable results.

So the second fighter jet in a week has slid off the deck of a US aircraft carrier.

An F-18 fighter jet was lost in the Red Sea on Tuesday after tipping off the flight deck of the USS Harry S Truman aircraft carrier, in the second such incident in about a week, two U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. The officials said the jet failed to come to a proper halt after landing on the carrier. Both members of the crew ejected before the jet plunged into the water and were recovered by a rescue helicopter, one of the officials said. The U.S. navy did not have an immediate response. One of the officials said medical evaluations showed the aviators had minor injuries and that no flight deck personnel were injured. The incident was first reported by CNN. ABC News and NBC News also had their own reports about it. Last week, another fighter jet fell overboard from the same ship, which has been aiding U.S. strikes against Yemen's Houthi fighters. U.S. fighter aircraft cost $60 million US or more, and such incidents are rare. The fact that two occurred in such a short time is likely to raise scrutiny of the carrier's operations.

These are stupid accidents which did not happen during combat.

Management sets the tone in a workplace. As the saying goes: A fish rots from the head down. The stench of rot at the White House grows stronger every day.

[accountability-movement]

I've compiled everything I could find on who is leading this coup and why. PLEASE READ!

Introduction

Democracies do not collapse overnight, nor do they always fall to military force. Sometimes, they erode from within, their institutions hollowed out by those who seek to replace democratic governance with personal power. In the United States, a systematic purge of career civil servants is underway, targeting those who simply followed the law under previous administrations. The president has declared his refusal to enforce laws he dislikes, and Congress stands by, enabling this erosion of democracy through inaction. Meanwhile, unelected billionaires, particularly in the tech sector, are consolidating their power, using economic dominance to exert unprecedented political control.

Those resisting this transformation are being removed from government, while those who facilitate it are rewarded with influence over critical federal functions. What we are witnessing is not just a shift in policy or ideology; it is an orchestrated attack on the foundational principles of democratic governance. The United States is shifting from a government by the people to one controlled by private interests, operating outside the constraints of law and accountability.

Meanwhile, the tech elite, with unprecedented access to the White House, are transforming their economic power into political domination. Elon Musk's associates have gained access to crucial government databases, controlling trillions in federal funds and personal data. Peter Thiel-backed firms are securing lucrative defense contracts, embedding themselves deep within national security structures. Social media executives and billionaire owned media channels have been manipulating discourse by selectively amplifying or suppressing political narratives that benefit their corporate interests, effectively shaping public opinion and policy decisions. This unprecedented infiltration is turning Silicon Valley’s economic dominance into direct political control, further eroding democratic governance.

Those brave enough to resist are being removed, while enablers are rewarded with expanded control over government functions. This is not just political maneuvering—we are witnessing the deliberate dismantling of constitutional democracy.

The difference between legitimate policy disagreements and what we are facing now is stark. Disagreeing on taxation or immigration policy is part of democratic debate. But refusing to enforce laws, purging civil servants for upholding legal mandates, and allowing private entities to seize control of government functions is not just politics—it is an outright attack on governance itself.

A Warning From Our Forefathers

Every American who has ever fought to preserve democracy—from the battlefields of Gettysburg to the beaches of Normandy—did so with the belief that future generations would safeguard the nation’s foundational principles. The sacrifices of these patriots were made to protect a government that serves the people, not one ruled by unchecked personal power.

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

George Washington said: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."

Benjamin Franklin believed that: "In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns."

John Jay warned "The executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it; therefore, it must be restrained by the other branches."

Harry Truman warned "When even one American—who has done nothing wrong—is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."

President Obama made it clear: "Democracy does not require uniformity. Our founders argued. They quarreled. They eventually compromised. They expected us to do the same."

Today, we are watching the systematic subversion of constitutional governance. Career officials are being forced out, government functions are being taken over by private individuals, and Congress is abandoning its responsibilities. These actions threaten everything our democracy stands for.

It is understandable that many hesitate to acknowledge what is happening. Accepting the reality of an ongoing coup is frightening. However, we must confront the facts: Donald Trump and Elon Musk are orchestrating a systematic takeover of the federal government, using illegal means to consolidate power. They are violating civil service protections, dismantling congressionally mandated agencies without authority, and purging public servants based on ideology rather than lawfulness.

This is an emergency that demands urgent action from every American who values democracy. The window for effective resistance narrows with each passing day.

The Transformation of Government into Private Power

The American Constitution is more than just a framework for governance—it is the greatest experiment in self-rule through law and reason rather than brute force. The Founders built a system designed to prevent any one individual from amassing unchecked power. They created a structure in which democratic institutions, not personal authority, would shape national decisions.

Now, we are watching as this system is methodically dismantled. The checks and balances that safeguard our democracy—civil service protections, congressional oversight, and institutional integrity—are being stripped away, not by revolution but by a calculated strategy of institutional capture.

Treasury Systems Seized: A 25-year-old Musk employee took control of the U.S. Treasury’s payment system, effectively managing $5.5 trillion in government spending—including IRS refunds, Medicare, and Social Security payments—without oversight. This also granted him and his colleagues access to our Social Security numbers and our tax records.

Federal Employee Purges: Musk and his allies have expanded their ideological purges into the CIA and FBI, removing officials who played roles in prosecuting January 6 rioters.

Agency Closures: Musk has moved to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, despite Congress controlling its funding.

Deportation Policies: Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced El Salvador’s offer to house deportees and imprisoned Americans in a "mega-prison." Its prison system has been widely criticized for torture, arbitrary detentions, and abuse. Outsourcing U.S. deportees and incarcerated citizens to a foreign prison with documented human rights violations could lead to severe mistreatment and loss of legal protections, setting a dangerous precedent for the U.S. justice system.

This is not theoretical—it is happening in real time. The government is being reshaped into a tool that benefits the wealthiest elite, at the expense of democracy itself.

The Role of "Unhumans" and the Justification for Authoritarianism

A key element of this takeover is the ideological justification found in the book Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions by Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec. This book, endorsed by figures such as JD Vance, Steve Bannon, Donald Trump Jr., and Tucker Carlson, openly dehumanizes the political left, labeling them as "unhuman" and advocating for their removal from society.

JD Vance, our vice-president, endorsed Unhumans, stating:

"In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back."

The book explicitly praises authoritarian leaders like Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet for their suppression of leftist movements and suggests that similar measures may be necessary.

The Tactics They Advocate

Unhumans lays out a clear strategy for eliminating democratic opposition:

Public Humiliation and Ridicule – Use shame, disgrace, and harassment to undermine political opponents.

Creation of Blacklists – Target individuals in academia, media, and government to be exposed and removed from positions of influence.

Rejection of Democratic Processes – Suggest alternative means to securing power beyond elections.

Advocacy for Capital Punishment – Argue for executing political opponents as seen in historical authoritarian regimes.

Promotion of Righteous Violence – Justify the use of force against "unhumans."

Support for Vigilantism – Encourage private action outside legal channels to target opposition.

Suppression of Opposing Ideologies – Use censorship and coercion to silence dissent.

Encouragement of Political Persecution – Employ legal and extralegal methods to eliminate political threats.

The Butterfly Revolution: How Big Tech Will Dismantle Our Democracy

The term "Butterfly Revolution" has recently been associated with a proposed strategy to dismantle the U.S. government and replace it with a corporate-style autocracy. This concept is linked to Curtis Yarvin, a political theorist known for advocating the replacement of democratic institutions with a CEO-led governance model. 

The plan envisions a "reboot" of the American government, discarding democratic institutions in favor of a system that mirrors a techno-monarchy, where technology leaders hold significant power.

Here are the 7 Major Steps the Butterfly Revolution recommends to dismantle democracy:

Step 1: Campaign on Autocracy: They tell the public democracy is broken and that the only way forward is strongman rule. Trump, Vance, and their billionaire backers openly reject democracy and promise to “take power back” from voters, courts, and Congress. Thiel, Musk, and others have publicly stated their opposition to democracy. Trump’s “Freedom Cities” and Yarvin’s “Patchwork” plan both envision corporate city-states run by billionaire CEOs instead of elected officials. 

Step 2: Purge the Bureaucracy: They fire or replace government workers with loyalists to eliminate checks and balances. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has already embedded agents inside federal agencies, giving him direct power over government operations. DOGE is modeled after Yarvin’s RAGE (Rapid Administrative Government Euthanasia)—designed to gut the administrative state and centralize power. Federal workers who resist are fired, replaced, or silenced.

Step 3: Ignore the Courts: They treat the judiciary as irrelevant—refusing to obey rulings that block their agenda. Musk and Vance have already dismissed federal judges’ rulings against DOGE’s actions. JD Vance has publicly questioned whether the courts have any authority over the executive branch. Once the courts are powerless, the rule of law collapses. 

Step 4: Co-Opt the Congress: They bully, buy, or bypass lawmakers to eliminate legislative oversight. Thiel and his allies have poured billions into Trump’s campaign and other far-right candidates to ensure that Congress is filled with loyalists. If Congress resists, the executive circumvents them with executive orders and corporate-backed policymaking (via Musk’s DOGE). Once Congress stops being an independent check, democracy is over. 

Step 5: Centralize Police and Power: They replace local law enforcement with federalized, AI-driven policing. AI and surveillance tech—controlled by these billionaires—will enforce their rule instead of independent law enforcement. Federal police powers will be centralized under the executive branch—meaning they answer to Musk, Vance, and Trump, not local governments. Dissent will be criminalized—protests, strikes, and opposition groups will be labeled as threats to “national security.” 

Step 6: Shut Down Elite Media and Academic Institutions: They discredit, defund, and dismantle independent sources of knowledge. Musk already controls Twitter/X, which has become a propaganda machine. Media outlets that criticize the coup will be bought out, shut down, or discredited. Universities will face funding cuts and ideological purges—professors who resist will be fired or censored. Once they control the flow of information, resistance becomes much harder. 

Step 7: Turn Out the People: They mobilize a loyalist base to enforce their rule on the streets. Far-right militias, online extremists, and billionaire-backed “populist” groups will be used to intimidate opponents. Election protests, media boycotts, and AI-powered propaganda will keep the public divided and disoriented. The government will claim they have “the people” on their side—even as they suppress millions. 

The Endgame: Technofascism and Corporate Rule: Once these seven steps are complete, America will no longer be a democracy. Corporate overlords will own the government, manipulate elections, control the police, and rule through AI and surveillance. 

The coup is already in motion. 

What Has Been Done So Far?

Defiance of the Constitution:

Trump is overriding laws and Constitutional protections through executive orders that were designed to safeguard our democracy. Trump is openly bypassing Congress, ignoring judicial rulings, and using executive power to centralize control.

His attack on the 14th Amendment is an attack on American citizens. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, yet Trump is targeting marginalized communities, including immigrants, intersex, and transgender people—denying them rights that our Constitution guarantees.

He is erasing women’s contributions from history. Trump has ordered NASA to purge all mentions of women in leadership from its official websites, an obvious attempt to rewrite history and diminish women’s role in science and government.

He is silencing vital public health information. Trump has removed critical medical data from CDC websites, limiting public access to life-saving health information. Why is the government restricting access to medical knowledge?

He is using the presidency to promote Christian supremacy. Executive orders are being signed to fund Christian nationalist task forces with taxpayer money, in direct violation of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. 

Elon Musk now has control over critical government software. He has direct access to Social Security numbers, tax records, and federal databases. This means he can train AI on every American’s personal data and manipulate government operations behind the scenes.

This jeopardizes our elections. If Musk controls the infrastructure, how can we ever trust that an election is fair again? Who is watching him?

Our entire government software may already be compromised. We do not know what Musk or his allies are doing behind closed doors, nor who they may sell this access to. Our entire digital infrastructure needs to be rewritten before it’s too late.

 Federal employees are being bullied and purged. Trump’s executive orders and Musk’s direct interference have created chaos, resulting in the wrongful firings of dedicated public servants and the deaths of innocent people in disasters like recent plane crashes. Trump shifted the blame to DEI policies, refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of reckless governance.

This Is About the 1% vs. the Rest of Us

This is not about left vs. right—this is about the wealthiest elite seizing control over our government at the expense of everyone else. Trump, Musk, and their billionaire allies are consolidating power, eroding democracy, and rigging the system to serve the ultra-rich while stripping rights away from ordinary people.

What Needs to Be Done NOW

Trump must be impeached before he further dismantles our institutions. 

Elon Musk must be investigated and held accountable for his control over government systems and potential data breaches. 

Congress must act immediately to stop this authoritarian takeover before it’s too late.

This is an organized corporate coup led by the wealthiest 1%, turning America into a billionaire-controlled dictatorship. The time for action is now.

What Can Be Done?

This is not a time for passive observation—action is required. Here’s what you can do:

Support Reliable Sources – Identify and follow media outlets committed to factual reporting.

Speak Out Against Broken Norms – Call out violations of democratic principles.

Organize Locally – Get involved with pro-democracy groups.

Attend Community Meetings – School boards and city councils are where grassroots power begins.

Contact Your Representatives – Demand accountability from lawmakers on appointees and legislation.

Here are some other resources to fight this coup and to gain more information:

“Dark Gothic MAGA” by Blonde Politics on YouTube breaks down podcasts, web seminars, and talks by wealthy elites where they talk about using this administration to achieve their agenda. It explains what the Butterfly Revolution is and how they plan on using it.

The ACLU – Is taking legal action against authoritarianism.

Contact your Senators! https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

GET INVOLVED! The more people that understand what’s going on, the better. Tell your neighbors, your coworkers, your friends, family, and your local and state representatives. The only way to stop this is together!

The time to act is now. Start small, but do not stop. Democracy depends on the vigilance and engagement of its people. If we fail to resist this moment, we may not get another chance.

[mariacallous]

In the middle of the nineteenth century, filth of every kind accumulated on the streets of New York. The land was boggy and lacked proper drainage. Epidemics ravaged many of the city’s impoverished neighborhoods. In the summer of 1864, an inspection undertaken by a committee of concerned physicians yielded a seventeen-volume report that catalogued the conditions. One inspector noted that, in his assigned district, refuse filled gutters, blocked sewage culverts, and sent forth “perennial emanations which generate pestiferous disease.” Another observed that certain streets better resembled “dung-hills rather than the thoroughfares in a civilized city.” In response to the report, state lawmakers introduced legislation that led to the establishment, in 1866, of the Metropolitan Board of Health, one of the country’s first municipal public-health authorities. Upon its formation, the board immediately confronted a potential cholera outbreak. It established quarantine measures and administered new health ordinances that helped to contain the spread of the disease. Support for the new agency soared, and other cities began organizing similar authorities. The modern-day public-health movement in the United States was born.

An important revelation from the “great sanitary awakening” of the nineteenth century, as it became known, was that social and environmental factors could significantly affect people’s health. During the second half of the twentieth century, policymakers began turning their attention to issues such as product and workplace safety as a way to save lives. In the mid-nineteen-fifties, nearly forty thousand people were dying every year from motor-vehicle accidents. Attention was primarily focussed on the responsibility of drivers, but physicians and engineers pointed out that most of these deaths were, in fact, preventable through changes in automobile design. In 1965, Ralph Nader, a young lawyer who later became an activist and a perpetual Presidential candidate, published “Unsafe at Any Speed,” a book examining the ways in which automakers had failed to prioritize safety. It became an unlikely nonfiction best-seller, alongside Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood.” Nader’s reporting prompted congressional hearings and the formation of what is now known as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. William Haddon, a pioneering public-health scientist, became the agency’s first administrator and oversaw the first safety requirements for new cars, including energy-absorbing steering columns, shoulder harnesses, and side-door beams. The ratio of motor-vehicle deaths to miles travelled by drivers in the United States plummeted.

The principal aim of public health is prevention. It takes its scientific cues primarily from epidemiology, which studies the prevalence of diseases and their determinants to shape control strategies. In the mid-nineteen-sixties, public-health practitioners began to incorporate these methods into a nascent discipline known as injury science, taking on problems such as children falling from windows, residential fires, childhood drug poisonings, and, beginning in earnest in the nineteen-nineties, gun violence. The premise is tantalizingly straightforward: utilize scientific data to identify risk factors and the most vulnerable populations, and adopt multipronged solutions to stop problems before they arise. When it comes to gun deaths, for instance, public-health interventions might include pediatricians inquiring about safe storage at home, and the government establishing waiting periods for the purchase of firearms and raising the legal age for gun ownership. The challenge comes in marshalling consensus for the kind of community-wide solutions that public health demands. This is where public-health initiatives have often floundered, including with guns.

In recent years, public-health researchers have begun to consider whether a new societal threat deserves their scrutiny: political violence. One of the researchers leading this effort is Garen Wintemute, the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis, who has spent more than four decades studying firearm violence. Wintemute is a gaunt, bespectacled emergency physician. (He still works four or five weekend shifts a month at U.C. Davis’s hospital.) He is seventy-two years old but speaks with an almost childlike inquisitiveness when discussing research into violent death. Wintemute told me that, during the coronavirus pandemic, he and his researchers tracked a nationwide surge in firearms purchases, particularly among first-time gun owners. Even as the COVID-19 crisis began to subside in 2021, they noticed that people were still purchasing guns at unusually high rates. Baffled by the ongoing demand, he wondered, What the hell is this? He spent a week immersing himself in the available data on political polarization and its connection to violence. When he emerged, he concluded that the subject of political violence urgently needed study, because people seemed to be “arming up” and the result “could reshape the future of the country.” He eventually directed a third of his thirty-person team to spend at least some of their time on a new project: researching the possibility that people might resort to violence to achieve their political ends.

As with any public-health problem, the first task was to collect reliable data. Wintemute’s team conducted their first broad-based survey in 2022 and found that nearly a third of the population believed that violence was usually or always justified to advance at least one of seventeen political objectives—a list that included curbing voter fraud, stopping illegal immigration, and returning Donald Trump to the Presidency. Nearly one in five agreed strongly or very strongly with the statement that “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy.” The willingness to justify violence was greater among people who identified as “strong Republicans” than those who identified as “strong Democrats.” Another study by Wintemute’s team found that nearly half of a cohort that they labelled “MAGA Republicans”—self-identified Republicans who voted for Trump in 2020 and believed the election was stolen—strongly or very strongly agreed with the statement “Our American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Wintemute also examined the threat posed by right-wing extremists who endorse racist beliefs and the use of violence to effect social change, and who express approval of certain militia groups such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Within this small subset—Wintemute estimates it to be less than two per cent of the population—he found strong association with support for political violence and the willingness to engage in such violence.

Yet certain findings offered Wintemute reason for optimism. A survey published last month found that only 6.5 per cent of the population believes strongly or very strongly that a civil war is coming, and just 3.6 per cent that the “United States needs a civil war to set things right.” Both figures are roughly similar to the previous year’s findings, an unexpected result, given that 2024 is a Presidential-election year and political tensions have ratcheted upward. Wintemute also found that, of the 3.7 per cent of respondents who said they considered it very or extremely likely they’d participate as a combatant in a large-scale conflict, more than forty-four per cent said they would be “not likely” to join if they were dissuaded by family members; more than thirty per cent said they could be deterred if a respected religious leader urged them not to participate; and just under a quarter said they could be dissuaded by a respected news or social-media source. The implication, according to Wintemute, is “a large percentage are saying, ‘You can talk me out of it.’ ” That points the way to potential public-health interventions, which might include consistent messaging from the media, religious leaders, and others about rejecting political violence.

The threat of violence has hovered like a nimbus cloud over this election season. The spectre of the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol remains omnipresent, but the two most visible instances of violence during the 2024 campaign have been directed at Trump. On July 13th, during a Trump campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a man on a warehouse roof fired eight times at the former President. A bullet grazed Trump’s ear; one rallygoer, a former volunteer fire chief, was killed; two others were injured. Then, on September 15th, as the former President was playing a round of golf at his club in West Palm Beach, a Secret Service agent patrolling the grounds spotted the muzzle of a rifle poking out of the shrubbery along a chain-link fence. The agent opened fire and the gunman fled. After the authorities arrested him, they discovered that he had been staking out the course for hours. Democrats have also been targeted. In Tempe, Arizona, state Party officials recently closed a campaign field office after it was shot at three times in three weeks.

According to tracking by the Bridging Divides Initiative, at Princeton University, threats and harassment of local public officials surged in July. Despite this, violence by extremist groups, as reported by a different organization, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, has actually ebbed this year, likely because law enforcement has arrested dozens of members of these groups for their participation in the Capitol riot. It makes for a perplexing picture. Is political violence an imminent threat to Americans or not? Political scientists, applying their theoretical frameworks, have long made clear the reasons for concern, including the way the country’s deepest cleavages, over race, ethnicity, religion, geography, and culture, are now embedded in people’s politics; the weakening of democracy’s guardrails during the Trump era; and the spread of misinformation.

The promise of public health is that it rests on scientific data and offers pragmatic solutions. Treating political violence like a contagion could help safeguard the future of American democracy. And yet the same fractures that potentially drive political violence can imperil the collaboration needed to address public-health crises. They can also lead to the most dangerous symptom of all: a sense of helplessness. But, if we simply wait for the disease to strike, it may already be too late. 

[nickturse]

U.S. Conducts “Largest Airstrike in the History of the World” (Sort Of)

60 tons of bombs to kill 14 people in one strike in Somalia.

Trump administration boasts of killing more than 100 people in Somalia since January.

[beardedmrbean]

Iran has ordered military personnel to leave Yemen, abandoning its Houthi allies as the US escalates an air strike campaign against the rebel group.

A senior Iranian official said the move aimed to avoid direct confrontation with the US if an Iranian soldier was killed.

The official said Iran was also scaling back its strategy of supporting a network of regional proxies to focus on the direct threats from the US instead.

Tehran’s primary concern, the source said, was “Trump and how to deal with him”.

“Every meeting is dominated by discussions about him, and none of the regional groups we previously supported are being discussed,” the source said.

There have been near-daily attacks on the Houthis from the US since group chat messages from senior Trump officials discussing the strikes were leaked to the media last month.

The strikes, which Donald Trump described as “unbelievably successful”, have destroyed important military targets and killed commanders.

A Pentagon spokesman said more warplanes would be sent to the region but did not provide specific details.

However the US’s 124th Fighter Wing announced late last month it was sending “multiple” A-10 Thunderbolt II ground-attack aircraft and 300 airmen to the Middle East.

A Russian military expert in Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, is also believed to be advising the Houthis on how to carry out their attacks while preventing them from targeting Saudi Arabia.

The kingdom has bombarded Houthi forces in Yemen since intervening in its civil war in 2015, and has hosted high-level talks between the US and Russia over a potential ceasefire in Ukraine.

The Houthi rebels have said they have been attacking US warships in the Red Sea, including the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman, which has been leading efforts to strike the rebel group.

No ships have been hit yet, but the US Navy said the Houthi fire was the heaviest its sailors have faced since World War II.

The USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, currently in Asia, is also on its way to the Middle East to support Truman.

The regime source in Iran said: “The view here is that the Houthis will not be able to survive and are living their final months or even days, so there is no point in keeping them on our list.

“They were part of a chain that relied on Nasrallah [the former secretary-general of Hezbollah] and Assad, and keeping only one part of that chain for the future makes no sense.”

Mr Trump has been ratcheting up pressure on Iran to come to the table and discuss limiting its nuclear programme. Last week Mr Trump moved stealth B-2 bombers to the US-UK Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos Islands.

The US position on Iran and the Middle East has radically shifted since Mr Trump came into power.

Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the Chatham House International Affairs Think Tank, said the increase in US strikes on Yemen was the Trump administration’s attempt to distance itself from the previous administration.

Joe Biden removed the Houthis’ designation as a terror organisation in 2021 – a decision Mr Trump reversed in January.

“Trump is trying to prove that he is more effective at ending and solving conflicts than the Biden administration was,” said Ms Vakil.

“[The strikes are] connected to the maximum pressure campaign that he has endorsed and he wants to simultaneously send a message to Iran and to the axis of resistance that his administration is going to take a bolder approach to destabilising regional activities.”

Mahmoud Shehrah, a former Yemeni diplomat and current associate fellow at the Chatham House, said the US had a “defensive strategy” against the Houthis during Joe Biden’s time in office.

From Amman, Jordan’s capital city, Mr Shehrah told The Telegraph: “The previous miscalculation about the Houthis in the US had made Trump carry heavier strikes against them now and [the US] have started to target individuals and key actors of them.”

He said weapons the Houthis possess are more sophisticated, which makes them more powerful than other non-state actors in Iran’s proxy groups across the Middle East.

Mr Shehrah added: “After the collapse of Hezbollah and Assad’s regime, the Houthis are now on the front line and they have been conducting very intensive attacks – they are escalating and taking adventure because it makes their political life longer in Yemen, according to their own calculation.”

“They get missiles and drones from Iran and rebrand them with Houthi names because they don’t want to show they have links with Iran because of domestic propaganda.”

Israel’s successes against Hamas and Hezbollah, key nodes in Iran’s network of proxies, have created an opportunity to weaken the Islamic regime’s influence.

Analysts also believe Iran’s failed missile strikes on Israel last year have damaged Iran’s ability to present a credible deterrence against external attacks, and also weakened the morale of its allies.

Israel’s military has destroyed much of Hamas’ infrastructure in Gaza, and inflicted heavy losses on Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iran also failed to protect Bashar al-Assad, the former Syrian president and a key ally, against a rapid rebel offensive that overthrew the dictator in December.

With Hezbollah’s influence diminished, the Houthis have tried to take its place in leading the fight against Israel.

Since the Hamas-led Oct 7 attacks on Israel in 2023, the Houthis have improved their tactics and missile capabilities and built a strong public image.

They control Sanaa, print money, collect taxes, divert aid, smuggle drugs, sell weapons to terror groups in Africa and disrupt international shipping routes in the Red Sea.

They also have a geographic advantage. Yemen’s mountainous terrain, similar to Afghanistan, helps them hide stockpiles of missiles and drones in caves and underground.

Mr Shehrah said: “They are not experienced like Hezbollah but are more aggressive and more dangerous at the same time – Abdul Malik al-Houthi has an ambition of leading the axis of resistance.

“Yemeni streets are full of anger – the Houthis are not paying salaries and have absolute taxation with zero representation so the social base for the Houthis is not very strong, that’s why they rely on the Gaza war.”