democracy

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke out forcefully Monday against the partisan effort to redraw California’s congressional districts that voters will decide in a November special election.

“They are trying to fight for democracy by getting rid of the democratic principles of California,” Schwarzenegger told hundred of students at an event celebrating democracy at the University of Southern California. “It is insane to let that happen.

The Hollywood action star turn Republican governor urged the students to vote against the redistricting measure, Proposition 50.

The special election in November would redraw the districts and probably boost the number of Democrats California sends to Congress, an effort championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom to counter efforts in GOP-led states such as Texas to send more Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Schwarzenegger has long championed political reform. During his final year as governor, he prioritized the ballot measure that created independent congressional redistricting. Four former members of the independent commission were recognized by Schwarzenegger at the event, and he had lunch with them and members of the university’s student governmentafterward.

He said he grew interested in the esoteric process of redistricting when he was governor and realized that districts drawn by politicians protected their political interests instead of voters.

“They want to dismantle this independent commission. They want to get rid of it under the auspices of we have to fight Trump,” Schwarzenegger said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me because we have to fight Trump, [yet] we become Trump.”

Since leaving office, Schwarzenegger has prioritized good governance at his institute at USC and campaigned for independent redistricting across the nation. The governor’s remarks were being recorded by the anti-Proposition 50 campaign in what could easily be turned into a television ad.

Outside, student Democrats passed out fliers in support of Proposition 50.

The event, a discussion with USC Interim President Beong-Soo Kim marking the International Day of Democracy, was scheduled to take place before conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot last week while speaking at a Utah college campus.

Schwarzenegger reflected on Kirk’s death as he warned about the fragile state of democracy.

“That someone’s life was taken because they had a different opinion, I mean it’s just unbelievable,” Schwarzenegger said, noting that Kirk was a skilled communicator who connected with young people, even those who disagreed with him. “A human life is gone. He was a great father, a great husband, and I was thinking about his children — they will only be reading about him now instead of him reading to them bedtime stories.”

He warned that the nation’s political climate was spiraling.

“We are getting hit from so many angles and we have to be very careful we don’t get closer to the cliff. When you fall down there, there is no democracy,” Schwarzenegger said, blaming social media, the mainstream media and the political parties for dividing Americans. “It’s very important that we turn this around.”

He urged the hundreds of students who attended the event to show that people can disagree politically without demonizing one another.

Since 2000, California voters have trudged to the polls to decide policy issues so frequently that they have practically worn paths to the voting booths. They have been faced with a record 86 ballot propositions and, in approving 46 of them, have established a new milestone in direct democracy in the state. With three statewide ballot elections next year, and the Legislature increasingly unable to achieve consensus on the big issues facing the state, the policymaking burden will continue to fall on voters. Indeed, healthcare reform and new waterworks investments, the subjects of a special legislative session, look likely to become ballot measures in 2008.

But creating or changing laws at the ballot box has its flaws. Because voters aren’t policy analysts or constitutional lawyers, the initiatives they back sometimes don’t work in practice. For instance, Proposition 187, which would have banned government services to illegal immigrants, easily won at the polls but was subsequently gutted by the courts. And in 1996, voters passed Proposition 198, which would have created an open-primary system, only to watch the state Supreme Court throw it out.

Rather that depend on either the Legislature or the initiative process to resolve the big issues facing California, there’s a third way. It’s called “hybrid democracy.”

The rise of direct democracy this decade stems in large part from the Legislature’s increasing inability to govern. The reasons are fairly familiar. One is partisan gridlock caused by gerrymandered districts that favor political extremes, conservative and liberal. Another is term limits, which have deprived the Legislature of experienced members with an institutional memory. Add the two-thirds vote requirement in the Assembly and Senate for budget and tax matters, and you have a Legislature with its hands largely tied, leaving more of the big decisions to voters.

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has also greatly contributed to this trend of government by ballot measure. No other governor in California history has gone to the voters to accomplish his legislative agenda as frequently as he has. Although the record is mixed on this tactic — all his reform initiatives were rejected in a 2005 special election, but more than $50 billion in fiscal-recovery and infrastructure bonds passed in 2004 and 2006 — it is clear that it resonates with Californians.

Deciding public policy at the ballot box appeals to Californians’ populism, their distrust of government and their concerns about the influence of special-interest groups (though, ironically, many initiatives are the handiwork of special interests). For instance, a statewide survey done by the Public Policy Institute of California in August 2006 showed that six in 10 Californians said they think that voters make better policy decisions than elected leaders, and seven in 10 said it is a “good thing” that voters can make policy and change laws at the ballot box. These attitudes have been on the rise this decade.

Trust in state government, meanwhile, is falling. The institute’s September survey found that only three in 10 adults said they trust the government in Sacramento to do what is right always or most of the time, which is close to the low point reached just before the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. Solid majorities said they believe that state government is run mainly by special interests and that a lot of taxpayer money is wasted. Only one in three today approve of the way the Legislature is doing its job.

Is there a fix that could restore Californians’ confidence in their Legislature? One suggested solution, Proposition 56, would have lowered the two-thirds vote requirement to a 55% majority. But voters soundly rejected it in 2004, and the concept continues to be unpopular among the state’s distrustful voters.

Extending politicians’ tenures in office also seems an unlikely answer. A term-limits reform initiative on the Feb. 5 primary ballot would lengthen the amount of time a legislator can serve in one chamber. Currently, legislators are limited to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. The initiative would allow lawmakers to spend a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, Senate or a combination of both. A majority of voters favors the measure, but they support it only because of its provision that total time lawmakers could serve would drop from 14 to 12 years, according to Public Policy Institute of California surveys. As for reforming the way California draws its electoral districts, voters spurned Schwarzenegger’s 2005 plan, which would have handed the job over to a panel of retired judges.

So ballot initiatives are going to be with us for a while — with all their advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes voters will pass them, only to see them thrown out by the courts. Sometimes (as in 2005) the governor will want them approved, but the voters will say no. Sometimes, bad new laws will be approved at the ballot box.

What works best is “hybrid democracy” — the Legislature and the voters working together. The truth is that voters don’t like to be asked to decide complicated public policy issues that legislators can’t settle. For instance, Schwarzenegger went around the Legislature in 2005 to qualify his reform initiatives, and all of them failed. But when elected leaders can reach a bipartisan consensus on these kinds of issues before placing them on the ballot, voters tend to follow their lead. For instance, in 2004 and 2006, the Legislature and the governor reached bipartisan agreement in placing the fiscal-recovery and public works bonds on the ballot, and the voters passed them.

It’s not always possible to reach bipartisan consensus. Some issues are still going to stymie the Legislature. But where possible, the lesson to legislators should be clear: Work the issues through wherever possible before putting them to voters. Healthcare reform and new water-delivery systems will probably end up on the ballot in one form or another, so lawmakers and the affected interests have every incentive to find common ground on the legislation before it gets there. If they succeed, voters are more likely to approve the measures. Only with this kind of partnership between elected leaders and voters can California move forward.

Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has dismissed criticism from the United States over the conviction of the country’s former leader, Jair Bolsonaro, on coup charges, and slammed Washington’s sweeping tariffs as “misguided” and “illogical”.

The comments, published in an op-ed in The New York Times on Sunday, came as Bolsonaro made his first public appearance since last week’s conviction for a hospital visit.

In his essay, Lula said he wanted to establish “an open and frank dialogue” with US President Donald Trump over his administration’s decision to impose a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian products in the wake of Bolsonaro’s trial.

He noted that the US has a trade surplus with Brazil, accumulating a surplus of $410bn in trade over the past 15 years, making it “clear that the motivation of the White House is political”.

The tariffs, Lula wrote, are aimed at seeking “impunity” for Bolsanaro, whom he accused of orchestrating the riots in Brasilia on January 8, 2023, when the former leader’s supporters stormed the presidential palace, the Supreme Court and the Congress in protest over his election defeat the previous year.

The events in the Brazilian capital echoed the storming of the US Capitol by Trump’s supporters on January 6, 2021, after he insisted for months, without evidence, that there had been widespread fraud during the election he lost to his Democratic rival, Joe Biden.

Lula described Bolsonaro’s actions as “an effort to subvert the popular will at the ballot box” and said he was proud of the Brazilian Supreme Court’s “historic decision” on Thursday to sentence the former president to 27 years and three months in prison.

“This was not a ‘witch hunt’,” he wrote.

Instead, it “safeguards” Brazil’s institutions and the democratic rule of law, he added.

Brazil’s democracy ‘not on table’

Lula’s op-ed comes after Trump’s secretary of state, Marco Rubio, threatened more action against Brazil over Bolsonaro’s conviction. In addition to the tariffs, the US has so far sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has overseen Bolsonaro’s trial, and revoked visas for most of the high court’s justices.

For his part, Trump, who has repeatedly labelled the judicial proceedings a “witch-hunt”, has said he was “surprised” by the ruling. The US president, who also had faced criminal charges over the Capitol attack before they were withdrawn following his re-election, likened the trial against Bolsonaro to the legal actions against him.

“It’s very much like they tried to do with me, but they didn’t get away with it,” Trump told reporters on Thursday, describing the former leader as a “good president” and a “good man”.

In his op-ed, Lula said the US’s decision to turn its back on a relationship of more than 200 years means that “everyone loses” and said the two countries should continue to work together in areas where they have common goals.

But he said Brazil’s democracy was non-negotiable.

“President Trump, we remain open to negotiating anything that can bring mutual benefits. But Brazil’s democracy and sovereignty are not on the table,” he wrote.

Economists in Brazil estimate that Trump’s tariffs would hurt the country’s economy, including through the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, but not derail it, given its strong trade ties with other countries such as China. The blow has further been softened when the US granted hundreds of exceptions, including on aircraft parts and orange juice.

US consumers, too, are paying more for products imported from Brazil, including coffee, which has already seen recent price rises due to droughts.

In Brasilia, meanwhile, Bolsonaro, who is under house arrest, left his home to undergo a medical procedure to remove several skin lesions.

His doctor, Claudio Birolini, told reporters that the former president had eight skin lesions removed and sent for biopsies.

He added that Bolsonaro, who has had multiple operations in recent years due to complications from a 2018 stabbing in his stomach, was “quite weak” and had developed slight anaemia, “probably due to poor nutrition over the last month”.

Dozens of supporters gathered outside the hospital to cheer on the former leader, waving Brazilian flags and shouting, “Amnesty now!”.

The chant is in reference to the push of Bolsonaro’s allies in Congress to grant the former president some kind of amnesty.

“We’re here to provide spiritual and psychological support,” Deuselis Filho, 46, told the Associated Press news agency.

Thursday’s sentence does not mean that Bolsonaro will immediately go to prison.

The court panel now has up to 60 days to publish the ruling. Once it does, Bolsonaro’s lawyers have five days to file motions for clarification.

His lawyers have said that they will try to appeal both the conviction and sentence before the full Supreme Court of 11 justices, although some experts think it is unlikely to be accepted.

As if we needed another reason to question Woody Allen’s judgment, the 89-year-old director praised President Trump as “polite” and “a pleasure to work with” on Bill Maher’s podcast, “Club Random.”

Allen, who cast Trump in a cameo appearance for his 1998 film “Celebrity,” said on Monday’s podcast that the then-real estate mogul “hit his mark, did everything correctly and had a real flair for show business.”

“As an actor, he was very good,” Allen said. “He was very convincing, and he has a charismatic quality as an actor. And I’m surprised he wanted to go into politics. Politics is nothing but headaches and critical decisions and agony.”

Trump’s latest critical decision as commander in chief? Sharing the filmmaker’s positive comments on his Truth Social account. Heavy hangs the crown …

But why would Trump even want Allen on his side?

Allen’s legacy as a groundbreaking filmmaker was tarnished by revelations about his personal life that emerged in the 1990s. It was revealed that he had a romantic relationship with his then-girlfriend Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. He was 56. She was 21. Allen’s own daughter with Farrow, Dylan, would later accuse Allen of sexually molesting her, claims that he denies. Even if fans want to separate the artist from news stories about the man, it’s difficult given that Allen’s films often reflect an obsession with youthful — and occasionally underage — women.

The president has been doing everything possible to bury his past associations with older men who allegedly prey on younger women. There’s this guy named Jeffrey Epstein …

There’s obviously no comparing Allen to the late convicted child sex trafficker, but why even open the door to such scrutiny? It’s because a compliment is a compliment, and there are so few of them coming from Hollywood that Trump could not help but copy, paste and post.

More troubling is that Allen now joins Maher in normalizing America’s first president who operates like a dictator, describing Trump as “pleasant,” “gracious,” even “measured.” Meanwhile, the White House is siccing militarized forces on American cities, trying to deport planeloads of children and attempting to rig the 2026 midterms.

Maher responded to Allen’s flattering words about Trump with mock outrage: “How dare you?!”

Allen may have surprised listeners who know the director as a master satirist of the flawed personality, but Maher was right on brand. The 69-year-old has forged a career playing to all sides of contentious issues while sincerely committing to none.

Earlier this year, the host of HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” who describes himself as a “vocal critic” of Trump, caught flak for dining with the president at Mar-a-Lago, then later describing Trump as “gracious,” “not fake” and that “everything I’ve ever not liked about him was absent.” He praised Trump for being “measured” and not like the “person who plays a crazy person on TV.”

Larry David, the creator of “Seinfeld” and star of “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” responded to Maher’s laudatory dinner recollection with a satirical essay in the New York Times titled “My Dinner With Adolf.” David wrote from the perspective of a “vocal critic” of the Nazi dictator who, over dinner, finds Hitler to be surprisingly “disarming” and “authentic.” The essay went viral.

During Monday’s podcast, Allen counterbalanced his kind words about Trump with the revelation that he voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. He also said that he disagrees with Trump on “99%” of issues.

After wondering aloud why Trump went into politics, Allen said, “This was a guy I used to see at the Knicks games, and he liked to play golf, and he liked to judge beauty contests, and he liked to do things that were enjoyable and relaxing. Why anyone would want to suddenly have to deal with the issues of politics is beyond me.”

Perhaps it’s about seizing total power? Exacting revenge on enemies such as his former national security advisor John Bolton? Scrubbing the Epstein files? Profiting off his office?

But let’s get back to Allen.

The director reiterated that he disagreed “with many, almost all, not all, but almost all of his politics, of his policies. I can only judge what I know from directing him in film. And he was pleasant to work [with], and very professional, very polite to everyone…

“If he would let me direct him now that he’s president, I think I could do wonders.”

He kids. But it was only just a few days ago that Allen came under fire for virtually attending the Moscow Film Festival as a guest of honor. He praised Russian cinema and hinted at wanting to shoot a film in the country. After some “measured” thought, perhaps Putin will get a cameo.

AUSTIN, Texas — Both parties expected Republicans to win an early round Wednesday in a growing national redistricting battle by pushing a congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats past its biggest obstacle in the Texas Legislature.

The Republican-controlled Texas House planned to vote on a redistricting plan that resulted from prodding by President Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business.

Some Democrats returned Monday, only to be assigned round-the-clock police escorts to ensure their attendance at Wednesday’s session. Seven who refused were confined to the House floor, where they protested on a livestream Tuesday night, led by Rep. Nicole Collier, who represents a minority-majority district in Fort Worth. Her staff removed a pillow, blanket and bag of personal effects early Wednesday.

As lawmakers trickled into the chamber, several Democrats gave Collier a hug, said “Thank you,” and took photos with her. In a social media post Tuesday night, Collier put a call from 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris on her cellphone’s speaker. Harris told Collier that, “We are all in that room with you.”

“We are making a difference,” she said after the call. “People are watching and they are ready to hold this government accountable.”

House approval of the map would send it to the Senate for a vote as early as Thursday. Passage there also is expected, and not enough Democrats walked out previously to prevent the chamber from working. Democrats said they’re preparing to challenge the new map in court.

Furious national Democrats have vowed payback for the Texas map, with California’s legislature poised to approve new maps adding more Democratic-friendly seats later this week. The map would still need to be approved by that state’s voters in November.

Normally, states redraw maps once a decade with new census figures. But Trump is lobbying other conservative-controlled states like Indiana and Missouri to also try to squeeze new GOP-friendly seats out of their maps as his party prepares for a difficult midterm election next year.

Democrats are energized by the fight in Texas

As House session was about to begin, about two dozen demonstrators supporting Democrats sang “Fighting for Democracy, we shall not be moved” outside the chamber. GOP House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced that the public gallery will be cleared if there are disruptions. The public gallery was mostly empty as the session was gaveled in.

But the 100 members required to do business were present. About 200 people have gathered in the Capitol’s rotunda for a rally supporting Democrats, holding signs saying “End Gerrymandering — Save Democracy,” “Defend the Constitution” and “Fascism is here.”

Texas Democrats spent the day before the vote continuing to draw attention to the extraordinary lengths the Republicans who run the legislature were going to ensure it takes place.

Collier started it when she refused to sign what Democrats called the “permission slip” required by Burrows to leave the House chamber, a half-page form allowing Department of Public Safety troopers to follow them. Collier spent Monday night and Tuesday on the House floor, where she set up a livestream while her Democratic colleagues outside had plainclothes officers following them to their offices and homes.

Dallas-area Rep. Linda Garcia said she drove three hours home from Austin with an officer following her. When she went grocery shopping, he went down every aisle with her, pretending to shop, she said. As she spoke to The Associated Press by phone, two unmarked cars with officers inside were parked outside her home.

“It’s a weird feeling,” she said. “The only way to explain the entire process is: It’s like I’m in a movie.”

Dallas-area Rep. Cassandra Garcia Hernandez joined the protest inside the House chamber and called it a “slumber party for democracy,” and she said Democrats were holding strategy sessions on the floor.

“We are not criminals,” Houston Rep. Penny Morales Shaw said before also joining Collier.

Collier said having officers shadow her was an attack on her dignity and an attempt to control her movements.

Republican leader says Collier ‘is well within her rights’

Burrows brushed off Collier’s protest, saying he was focused on important issues, such as providing property tax relief and responding to last month’s deadly floods. His statement Tuesday morning did not mention redistricting, and his office did not immediately respond to other Democrats joining Collier.

“Rep. Collier’s choice to stay and not sign the permission slip is well within her rights under the House Rules,” Burrows said.

Under those rules, until Wednesday’s vote, the chamber’s doors were locked, and no member could leave “without the written permission of the speaker.”

Republicans issued civil arrest warrants to bring the Democrats back after they left the state Aug. 3, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott asked the state Supreme Court to oust Rep. Gene Wu of Houston — the House minority leader — and several other Democrats from office. The lawmakers also face a fine of $500 for every day they were absent.

Democrats outside the Capitol reported different levels of monitoring and some said the officers watching them were friendly. But Austin Rep. Sheryl Cole said in a social media post that when she went on her morning walk Tuesday, the officer following her lost her on the trail, got angry and threatened to arrest her.

Garcia said the officer who tailed her home also came in the grocery store when she went shopping with her 9-year-old son.

“I would imagine that this is the way it feels when you’re potentially shoplifting and someone is assessing whether you’re going to steal,” she said.

Vertuno and Riccardi write for the Associated Press. Riccardi reported from Denver. John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., and Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La., contributed to this report.

President Trump wants new congressional maps in Texas — now. Not in the next decade. Not after the next census. Not when it’s traditionally done. He wants it done smack dab in the middle of the decade.

Why the odd timing? Because he wants it done in time to help his presidency.

In Trump’s mind, Texas is a vending machine: insert redistricting, receive five shiny new Republican seats. “We are entitled to five more seats,” he declared on CNBC, his voice dripping with the royal “we” of someone who thinks democracy is nothing but a loyalty program.

This is merely the latest example of Trump’s fondness for procedural hardball. He recently sacked the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner for reporting job numbers he didn’t like. And his congressional minions just passed a bipartisan bill that required Democratic votes to get through, only to use budget “rescissions” to take back the Democratic priorities they never intended to fund.

Trump plays Calvinball with democracy — rules change mid-play, and he’s somehow always the one scoring.

And here’s the thing: It’s not illegal. “Not illegal” in the same way that drinking milk straight from the carton isn’t illegal — just gross, petty and an announcement to the room that you’re not interested in living by any mutually agreed-upon standards. (Trust me. I have teenagers.)

The Texas gambit, though, is utterly Trumpian in its ambitious recklessness. It might work. Or it might backfire and actually cost Republicans 2026 midterm seats. But either way, this aggression is radioactive.

Consider the immediate reaction. Texas Democrats, lacking the votes to block the move, fled the state entirely — denying Republicans the quorum they needed to conduct business.

This, in turn, was met with all the subtlety of a bounty hunt. The Texas House speaker signed civil arrest warrants for the missing lawmakers. The governor ordered state officials to search every warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse. (Just kidding. That was Tommy Lee Jones in “The Fugitive.” But, honestly, it’s a pretty close approximation.)

Powder keg vibes abound. What happens if and when a Texas lawman tries to slap cuffs on a Democrat in New York or California? Do we get a full-blown interstate standoff? A live cable news shootout of sheriffs and state troopers at the airport terminal gate?

Even if nothing that crazy happens, legislators making $600 a month are being fined $500 a day for their absence. And the governor has even threatened bribery charges against anyone helping them pay the fines.

But here’s where the escalation really kicks in. Even if the Texas Democrats fold and slink back to Austin (honestly, they don’t have much leverage), blue states are already eyeing retaliation.

California, New York, Illinois — they could all dust off the gerrymander machine to carve out extra Democratic seats. (Yes, some blue states handed map drawing to independent commissions, but power has a way of finding the crowbar it needs.)

This is mutually assured destruction with ballots instead of missiles.

And the kicker? After both sides squeeze every last seat out of their respective states, this whole exhausting mess could net Republicans one or two extra seats — or maybe none at all.

At this point, you might be wondering “How did we get here?”

I’m reminded of an old story — possibly true, probably apocryphal — about how circus elephants are trained.

When they’re babies (calves), elephants are chained to a stake they can’t pull up. They try and fail, and eventually they stop trying.

As adults, weighing several tons, they could walk away from the stake they are chained to at any time. But they don’t. They’ve learned the stake is “unbreakable.” Resistance is futile.

Trump is the elephant who never got that memo. To him, the stake — the norms, the Constitution, the institutions — is a suggestion, not a restraint.

The bigger problem? Everyone else has now seen Trump become unmoored from accountability — with impunity. They imagine they can do it, too.

Republicans who used to quietly admire their own prudent “restraint” now believe they just lacked imagination. And Democrats are starting to believe that playing nice equates to playing dead.

And so, the stakes are coming out of the ground everywhere.

We used to imagine there was an invisible line — one that politicians wouldn’t cross out of shame, duty or fear of the abyss.

Turns out, the abyss has a DJ and an open bar. The people hurtling toward it aren’t falling. They’re soaring.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

In Kenya, as in many countries across the world, street protests are often framed as the unfortunate result of political failure. As the logic goes, the inability of state institutions to translate popular sentiment into political, legislative and regulatory action to address grievances undermines trust and leaves the streets vulnerable to eruptions of popular discontent.

In this telling, protests are viewed as a political problem with grievances expected to be legitimately addressed using the mechanisms – coercive or consensual – of the formal political system.

Like its predecessors, the increasingly paranoid regime of Kenyan President William Ruto has also adopted this view. While generally acknowledging the constitutional right of protest, it has sought to paint the largely peaceful and sustained Generation Z demonstrations and agitation of the past 16 months, which have questioned its rule and policies, as a threat to public order and safety and to delegitimise the street as an avenue for addressing public issues.

“What is going on in these streets, people think is fashionable,” Ruto declared a month ago. “They take selfies and post on social media. But I want to tell you, if we continue this way, … we will not have a country.”

The killing and abductions of protesters as well as the move to charge them with “terrorism” offences, borrowing a leaf from Western governments that have similarly criminalised pro-Palestinian and antigenocide sentiments, are clear examples of the state’s preferred response. At the same time, there have been repeated calls for the protesters to enter into talks with the regime and, more recently, for an “intergenerational national conclave” to address their concerns.

But framing protests as a dangerous response to political dissatisfaction is flawed. Demonstrations are an expression of democracy, not the result of its failures. The Generation Z movement has shown that transparency, mutual aid and political consciousness can thrive outside formal institutions. Activists have made the streets and online forums sites of grievance, rigorous debate, civic education, and policy engagement.

They have raised funds, provided medical and legal aid, and supported bereaved families, all without help from the state or international donors. In doing so, they have reminded the country that citizenship is not just about casting ballots every five years. It is about showing up – together, creatively and courageously – to shape the future.

The Generation Z movement is in many respects a reincarnation of the reform movement of the 1990s when Kenyans waged a decadelong street-based struggle against the brutal dictatorship of President Daniel arap Moi. Today’s defiant chants of “Ruto must go” and “Wantam” – the demand that Ruto be denied a second term in the 2027 election – echo the rallying cries from 30 years ago: “Moi must go” and “Yote yawezekana bila Moi (All is possible without Moi).”

Centring the struggle on Moi was a potent political strategy. It united a broad coalition, drew international attention and forced critical concessions – from the reintroduction of multiparty politics and term limits to the expansion of civil liberties and, crucially, the rights of assembly and expression.

By the time Moi left office at the end of 2002, Kenya was arguably at its freest, its spirit immortalised in the Gidi Gidi Maji Maji hit I Am Unbwogable! (I Am Unshakable and Indomitable!)” But that moment of triumph also masked a deeper danger: the illusion that removing a leader was the same as transforming the system.

Moi’s successor, Mwai Kibaki, hailed then as a reformist and gentleman of Kenyan politics, quickly set about reversing hard-won gains. His government blocked (then tried to subvert) constitutional reform, raided newsrooms and eventually presided over a stolen election that brought Kenya to the brink of civil war.

One of his closest ministers, the late John Michuki, had in 2003 revealed the true mindset of the political class: Constitutional change to devolve the power of the presidency, he claimed, was necessary only so “one of our own could share power with Moi”. Once Moi was gone, he averred, there was no longer need for it.

Due to the obstruction from the political class, it took Kenyans close to a decade after Moi’s departure to finally promulgate a new constitution.

Generation Z must avoid the trap of the transition of the 2000s. Power, in the Kenyan political imagination, has often been the prize, not the problem. But real change requires more than a reshuffling of names atop the state. It demands a refusal to treat state power as the destination and a commitment to reshaping the terrain on which that power operates. And this is where the youth should beware the machinations of a political class that is more interested in power than in change.

Today’s calls for national talks and intergenerational conclaves emanating from this class should be treated with suspicion. Kenyans have seen this play out before. From the 1997 Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group talks and the negotiations brokered by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan after the 2007-2008 postelection violence to the infamous “handshake” between President Uhuru Kenyatta and his rival Raila Odinga and the failed Building Bridges Initiative, each of these elite pacts was presented as a way to translate popular anger into meaningful reform. Yet time and again, they only served to defuse movements, sideline dissenters and protect entrenched power.

Worse still, Kenya has a long history of elevating reformers – from opposition leaders and journalists to civil society activists – into positions of state power, only for them to abandon their principles once at the top. Radical rhetoric gives way to political compromise. The goal becomes to rule and extract, not transform. Many end up defending the very systems they once opposed.

“Ruto must go” is a powerful tactic for mobilisation and pressure. But it should not be seen as the end goal. That was my generation’s mistake. We forgot that we did not achieve the freedoms we enjoy – and that Ruto seeks to roll back – through engaging in the formal system’s rituals of elections and elite agreements but by imposing change on it from the outside. We allowed the politicians to hijack the street movements and reframe power and elite consensus as the solution, not the problem.

Generation Z must learn from that failure. Its focus must relentlessly be on undoing the system that enables and sustains oppression, not feeding reformers into it. And the streets must remain a legitimate space of powerful political participation, not one to be pacified or criminalised. For its challenge to formal state power is not a threat to democracy. It is democracy.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

In a brazen move, Republicans in Texas have set out to redraw the state’s congressional map — an effort to boost President Trump and the GOP in the 2026 midterm elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to respond in kind, gerrymandering blue California to give Democrats a lift and offset the Lone Star lunge for power.

That would mean scrapping the political lines drawn by an independent citizens commission, which voters created nearly two decades ago to take line-drawing away from the state’s politicians.

Our columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria disagree strongly, but amicably, on the wisdom and implications of Newsom’s threatened move. Here they hash it out.

Barabak: Gavin Newsom — or the 48th president of the United States, as he fancies himself — is perhaps second only to Donald Trump when it comes to surfing a political wave. And so it is with redistricting and retribution.

It may set partisan Democratic hearts to racing — which is part of Newsom’s intent — but it’s a bad move for all sorts of reasons. Not least, ignoring the will of California voters, who resoundingly told the state’s self-dealing politicians no mas!

I understand the fight-fire-with-fire attitude that animates partisan support for the get-even talk by 48, er, Newsom. But the danger is causing even more widespread damage.

Over the years, a lot of zeitgeist-y moves by the headline-hungry Newsom have come to naught. This is another that belongs on the scrap heap.

Chabria: I agree that the Vegas odds are on the side of this tit-for-tat being nothing more than a partisan headline-grabber.

But.

There is a larger and more important question here that boils down to how seriously you believe our democracy is in jeopardy.

If, Mark — as I think you are inclined to at least hope — this too shall pass and our next election will be free and fair, however it may land, then the idea of gerrymandering our congressional districts can be nothing but appalling. This is especially true in California, one of the few states in which the people have voted to ensure our electoral maps are drawn with nonpartisan fairness in mind.

If, like me, however, you think we are on a knife’s edge of losing our democracy to authoritarianism — or at least an oligarchy where hate is wielded for power — then gerrymandering becomes a form of peaceful resistance.

Newsom recently said, “We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment” — which gives you an idea of his thinking, and frankly, mine.

I’ll dive into that more, but maybe that’s where we start. Do you think our democracy is sound and what we’re witnessing is just a period of discontent that will pass without lasting harm?

Barabak: I sure hope so.

I yield to no one in my disgust with Trump and concern about what he’s doing. He’s authoritarian. Autocratic. Arrogant. Anti-democratic. And that’s not even getting past the letter “A.”

But actions like the one Newsom threatens on redistricting don’t take place in a vacuum, which is important to bear in mind. Short-term tactical gains can result in long-term pain.

For instance: In 2013 Democrats were so upset about Republican blockading of President Obama’s judicial and executive branch nominations that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the “nuclear option.” At Reid’s behest, the Senate narrowly voted to change its rules and disallow the filibustering of presidential nominees.

The result is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a whole clown car of Trump Cabinet members.

And while Democrats explicitly said the rule change would not apply to the Supreme Court, once the door was open Republicans shouldered their way through and eliminated the filibuster for those nominees as well. The result is Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and the high court’s 6-3 Trump-coddling conservative super-majority.

Those who fight fire with fire risk getting badly burned.

If Democrats want a war over redistricting, Republicans have a lot more ways to gerrymander and potentially gain seats — in places such as Florida, Missouri and Ohio — than Democrats.

Chabria: No doubt. But, and this is as low as it gets, I’ll pay the price of a Hegseth, maybe even two, if it really does save democracy. Here’s the reality: The only hope of a Congress that will curb Trump through the democratic process is shifting at least some power to Democrats in the 2026 election.

If Texas Republicans, under pressure from Trump, manage to redraw as many as five new GOP-leaning seats — and it doesn’t blow up in their faces, which it could — the move would boost the chances the House remains a Trump entourage and the prospect of authoritarianism goes from brush fire to wildfire.

The truth is that gerrymandering is far more common than most realize. Kevin Johnson, an expert with the Election Reformers Network, wrote recently that “In the 1990s, only 40% of the seats in the House of Representatives were considered a sure thing for one party or the other, now that figure is 83%.” That’s because most states gerrymander.

Really, the only truly competitive races take place in states such as California that have independent, nonpartisan folks drawing the election maps. So to play devil’s advocate, we’ve already lost to gerrymandering in the U.S. and California just doesn’t know it.

That’s a problem that could be solved if a future president and Congress wanted to do so. But it requires getting to a future president and Congress. I always put this on the record: I care neither about Republicans or Democrats. I care about democracy.

If California gerrymandered, helped turn Congress into a real check against authoritarianism and left fixing gerrymandering for later, would it really be so bad?

Barabak: Your crystal ball must be less hazy than mine.

I’m not all convinced that even a gain of five Texas House seats would guarantee GOP control of the House. (And let me put this on the record: I think what Trump and his Texas handmaidens are doing is thoroughly reprehensible.)

Since World War II, the out-party has picked up an average of more than two dozen House seats in midterm elections. Democrats need a gain of three to seize control.

There’s even, as you suggest, a chance Republicans’ political pigginess backfires by spreading their voters too thin, creating districts that Democrats might pick up if there’s a big enough blue wave.

Speaking of moves backfiring, it’s no sure bet Californians would approve Newsom’s gerrymander effort if he put it to a vote in a special election to override the commission.

Surrendering power to politicians is a pretty big ask in today’s environment. And it’s not as though Newsom has a deep reservoir of goodwill to draw upon; just look at his poll numbers.

He went to South Carolina to, allegedly, campaign for Democratic House candidates, even though the state hasn’t a single competitive contest. California has about 10 races that look to be at least somewhat competitive — yet you don’t see fellow Democrats clamoring for Newsom to drop by their districts.

Chabria: I don’t have a crystal ball. What I do have is a deep well of foreboding, but an optimist’s hope that your blue wave, power-to-the-people scenario happens.

In the meantime, Newsom said Friday that redistricting “is not a bluff,” and he is exploring multiple ways to do it.

On that list is a legal gamble. Our current redistricting laws say maps have to be drawn fairly every 10 years, after the census — but doesn’t specifically say we can’t gerrymander in between. Newsom is basically suggesting cheating with a sunset clause: Immediate redistricting that benefits Democrats, but that would expire when the regular redistricting happens.

It’s drastic, and may just wind up tied up in courts indefinitely.

But I am frustrated that politicians, pundits and even regular people continue to treat this administration as just politics as usual, and I appreciate that Newsom is not, even if part of it is driven by personal gain for a 2028 presidential bid. Perhaps our democracy has been on the brink before, but that makes this cliff no less dangerous. We the people need to think outside of our regular reactions to Republicans vs. Democrats or cultural wars or partisan divides or any of the far more harmless stressors that have plagued our system in the past.

What I like about Newsom’s jab is that it forces us to have conversations like this one, and ask ourselves how do we fight differently?

Because this fight is different.

Barabak: This may sound Pollyannaish, but I think there’s nothing about these frightful times that can’t be remedied at the ballot box.

Texas may have a competitive U.S. Senate race next year. If Texans don’t like the ruthlessness of GOP lawmakers and their power grab, they can send a message by electing a Democrat, helping the party overcome the odds and take control of the chamber. That would put a check on Trump, regardless of whether Republicans hang onto the House.

It’s in the hands of voters. If democracy is going to be protected and preserved, it’s up to them. Not scheming politicians.

California is having a bummer of a political summer.

With the state under daily siege by the Trump administration, Los Angeles occupied by federal troops and our gallivanting governor busy running for president, is it really any surprise?

A recent UC Irvine poll found that residents, by a 2-to-1 margin, believe California is headed on the wrong track, a mood consistent with other gauges of Golden State grumpiness.

Why the sad faces?

“We are so divided as a country that people feel like there’s no common purpose and the other guys are out there about to do mayhem to the things that they believe in,” said Jon Gould, dean of UC Irvine’s School of Social Ecology. “Number two, there is a substantial portion of people who feel that their economic situation is worse than it was four years ago, two years ago, one year ago.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom also gets some credit, er, blame for the state’s darkened disposition.

A poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies found California voters have little faith in their chief executive as he rounds the turn toward his final year in office. (Which may be one reason Newsom would rather spend time laying the groundwork for a 2028 White House bid.)

Only 14% of voters surveyed had “a lot” of trust in Newsom to act in the best interests of the California public, while another 28% trusted him “somewhat.” Fifty-three percent had no trust in the governor, or only “a little.”

Not a strong foundation for a presidential campaign, but Potomac fever is a powerful thing.

The Democratic-run Legislature fared about the same in the Berkeley survey.

Forty-four percent of respondents had either a lot or some degree of trust in Sacramento lawmakers — not a great look, but a number that positively shines compared to attitudes toward California’s tech companies and their leaders as they increasingly try to spread their overweening influence to politics. Only 4% had a lot of trust in the companies acting in the best interest of the California public; nearly six in 10 did not trust them at all. (There was similarly little faith in business groups.)

But it’s not just the state’s leaders and institutions that fail to engender much trust or goodwill.

A survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found residents have also soured on the three branches of the federal government.

Fewer than a third of Californians expressed approval for President Trump and the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. Just 2 in 10 Californians approved of the job Congress is doing.

Some of that is colored by partisan attitudes. Registered Democrats make up the largest portion of the electorate and, obviously, most aren’t happy with the GOP stranglehold on Washington. But that distrust transcended red and blue loyalties.

Overall, 8 in 10 adults said they do not fully trust the federal government to do what is right. A nearly identical percentage said they trust the government to do what is right only some of the time.

That, too, is part of a long-standing pattern.

“It’s a concern, but it’s not a new concern,” said Mark Baldassare, who directs research for the Public Policy Institute. “It’s been around in some form for decades.”

Back in 1958, when the National Election Study first asked, about three-quarters of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time — a level of faith that, today, sounds like it comes from people in another galaxy.

Starting in the 1960s, with the escalation of the Vietnam War, and continuing through the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, that trust has steadily eroded. The last time the Pew Research Center asked the question, in the spring of 2024, just 35% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents nationwide said they trusted the federal government just about always or most of the time. That compared to just 11% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

What’s new — and perhaps most troubling — in the recent batch of opinion surveys are growing fears for the state of our democracy.

Nearly two-thirds of those sampled in the Berkeley poll felt that “American democracy is under attack” and another 26% described it as “being tested.” Only 1 in 10 said our democracy is in “no danger.”

America has had some knock-down political fights in recent decades. But it’s only in the Trump era, with his incessant lying about the 2020 election and assault on the rule of law, that the durability of our democracy has become a widespread concern.

Pollsters didn’t even ask that question “10 years ago, 20 years ago, because it was just inconceivable,” said Eric Schickler, who co-directs Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies.

“Even in moments when people were mad, say after [Hurricane] Katrina, Iraq with Bush, or amid the Lewinsky scandal or various other moments of trouble and conflict you would never have seen… 64% say American democracy is under attack and only 10% saying democracy is not in danger,” Schickler said. “That’s just a pretty stunning number … and I think it suggests something really different is going on now.”

Perhaps this is just a temporary cloud, like the coastal fog that dissipates as summer rolls on?

“In the short to medium term, I’m not optimistic,” Schickler said. “I think that the problems that we have, the challenges, have just been growing over a period of time. Starting before the Trump era, for sure, but then accelerating in recent years. I think we’re heading more toward a politics where there just aren’t limits on what a party in power is going to do or try to accomplish, and the other party is an enemy and that’s a really bad dynamic.”

Oh, well.

There’s always the mountains, beach and desert offering Californians an escape.

SACRAMENTO — An overwhelming number of California voters think American democracy is being threatened or, at the very least, tested, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

The poll, conducted for the nonprofit Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, found that concerns cut across the partisan spectrum. They are shared regardless of income or education level, race or ethnicity. Californians living in big cities and rural countrysides, young and old, expressed similar unease.

“I do think that it’s at a pretty dangerous point right now. The concerns are justified,” said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Berkeley institute. “Our democracy is not healthy when you have a president that’s acting to unilaterally stop money from being spent that’s been appropriated, or going to war with colleges and universities or sending troops to L.A.”

In the survey, 64% of California voters said they thought American democracy was under attack, and 26% felt our system of government was being tested but was not under attack. The poll did not investigate what voters blamed for putting democracy in peril.

Democrats, who dominate the California electorate, were the most fearful, with 81% saying it was under attack and 16% who described democracy as being tested. Among voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties, 61% felt democracy was under assault, and 32% said it was being tested.

Republicans expressed more faith — nearly a quarter of those polled said they felt democracy was in no danger. But 38% said it was under attack and 39% said it was being tested but not under attack.

Concerns among Democrats may have been expected in California, given the state’s liberal tilt and the widespread and relentless government upheaval since President Trump took office in January. But the opinions shared by Republicans indicates just how pervasive the concerns are about the future of a country seen as a worldwide beacon of freedom and democracy.

Emily Ekins, director of polling for the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said those findings are evidence of an unsettling new development in American politics.

“A couple years ago, Republicans felt that democracy was at risk and now Democrats feel that democracy is at risk. I think that this is pretty worrisome, because people are starting to view the stakes of each election as being higher and higher,” said Ekins, who had no involvement with the Berkeley poll. “They may feel like they could lose their rights and freedoms. They may not feel like the rules apply to them anymore because they feel like so much is on the line.”

Schickler said the political perceptions among Republicans have been recently fed, in part, by Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. Continuous allegations that the U.S. Department. of Justice, including the FBI, and a “deep state” federal government bureaucracy were weaponized against him since his first term in office also contributed to the fear.

Those claims were magnified by conservative news outlets, including Fox News, as well as Trump loyalists on social media, popular podcasts and talk shows.

Even some Republicans who support the president or are agnostic about his tenure are likely concerned about the discord in American politics in recent months, Schickler said, especially after the Trump administration sent U.S. Marines and the California National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles as a protective force during widespread federal immigration raids and subsequent protests.

Recent decisions by media companies to settle Trump’s lawsuits over complaints about stories and coverage also are concerning, he said, despite the merits of those allegations being suspect.

This month, Paramount Global decided to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris; the president claimed it was done to help her presidential campaign against him. Paramount’s leaders hope the settlement will help clear a path for Trump-appointed regulators to bless the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media.

“That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work,” Schickler said. “I think the voters’ concerns are rooted in a reality, one that’s been building up for a while. It’s not something that’s just started in 2025 but it’s been kind of gradually getting more serious over the last 20 or 30 years.”

The survey also found that 75% of California voters believe strongly or somewhat that special interest money has too much influence in state politics, a sentiment especially strong among Republicans.

Slim majorities of California voters had little or no trust that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature act in the best interest of the public. According to the poll, 42% of voters said they have a lot or some trust in Newsom to act in the public’s interest; 53% said they trust his actions just a little or not at all.

Those surveyed had similar sentiments about the legislature.

The courts received the most favorable marks, with 57% of voters saying they trusted the judicial system to act in the best interest of the public.

Technology companies and their leaders were labeled completely untrustworthy by 58% of those surveyed.

Russia Chavis Cardenas, deputy director of the nonpartisan government accountability organization group California Common Cause, which has received grants from the poll-sponsoring Haas Fund, said the findings show just how much special interest influence in Sacramento, and Washington, erodes public trust in government, which may provide insight into their concerns about the health of the American democracy.

“I want to see folks from every political party, every race and every walk of life to be able to be engaged in their democracy, to be able to have a say, to be able to have representation,” Chavis Cardinas said.

“So these numbers are concerning, but they also don’t lie,” she said. “They’re letting us know that folks here in California recognize the influence that big money has, and that the tech companies have too much power over elected officials.”

The poll surveyed 6,474 registered voters throughout California from June 2-6.

BERLIN — In a country that saw its democracy die in 1933, the more than 170,000 people crowding into three of Germany’s biggest soccer stadiums for Bruce Springsteen’s rock concerts in recent weeks have been especially receptive to his message and dire warnings about a politically perilous moment in the United States, one that has reminded some of Adolf Hitler’s power grab in the ’30s.

At these gigantic open-air concerts in Berlin, Frankfurt and Gelsenkirchen, which have been among the largest concerts to date in Springsteen’s two-month-long, 16-show Land of Hope & Dreams tour across Europe, the 75-year-old rock star from New Jersey has interspersed short but poignant political speeches into his exhausting, sweat-drenched performances to describe the dangers he sees in the United States under the Trump administration.

“The mighty E Street Band is here tonight to call upon the righteous power of art, of music, of rock ’n’ roll in dangerous times,” Springsteen says to cheers at the start of each concert. “In my home — the America I love, the America I have written about — the America that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration. Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experience to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring.”

Springsteen’s words have had special resonance in Germany, where memories of the Nazi past are never far from the surface and the cataclysmic demise of the Weimar Republic, which led directly to Hitler’s takeover, is studied in great detail in schools and universities. With that Nazi past embedded in their DNA, German fears of President Trump’s tactics probably run higher than anywhere else.

“Germans tend to have angst about a lot of things and they are really afraid of Trump,” said Michael Pilz, a music critic for the Welt newspaper, who agrees that the death of German democracy in 1933 is a contributing factor to the popularity of Springsteen’s anti-Trump concerts this summer. “A lot of Germans think Trump is a fool. It’s not only his politics but the way he is, just so completely over the top. Germans love to see Trump getting hit. And they admire Springsteen for standing up and taking it to him.”

“The mighty E Street Band is here tonight to call upon the righteous power of art, of music, of rock ’n’ roll in dangerous times,” Springsteen says to cheers at the start of each concert.

(Markus Schreiber / Associated Press)

The crowds in Germany have been as large as they are enthusiastic. More than 75,000 filled Berlin’s Olympic Stadium on June 11; 44,500 were in Frankfurt on June 18; and another 51,000 watched his concert in the faded Ruhr River industrial town of Gelsenkirchen on June 27. All told, more than 700,000 tickets have been sold for the 16 shows in Springsteen’s tour (for concerts that last three or more hours), which concludes on July 3 in Milan, Italy.

“The German aversion to Trump has now become more extreme in his second term — Germans just don’t understand how the Americans could elect someone like Trump,” said Jochen Staadt, a political science professor at the Free University in Berlin who is also a drummer in an amateur Berlin rock band. Staadt believes Springsteen’s 1988 concert may well have helped pave the way for the Berlin Wall to fall a little over a year later in 1989. “Germans are drawn to Springsteen as someone who played an important role in our history when Germany was still divided and as someone who may have helped overcome that division with rock music.”

Springsteen has been filling stadiums across Europe in the warm summertime evenings with his high-energy shows that not only entertain the tremendous crowds but also take on Trump’s policies on civil liberties, free speech, immigrants and universities in thoughtfully constructed messages. To ensure nothing is lost in translation, Springsteen’s brief forays into politics of about two to three minutes each are translated for local audiences in German, French, Spanish, Basque and Italian subtitles on the giant video walls onstage.

To ram the message home to more people, Springsteen also released a 30-minute recording from the first stop of the tour in Manchester, England, that contains three songs and three of his speeches onstage.

“I’ve always tried to be a good ambassador for America,” said Springsteen while introducing “My City of Ruins,” a song he wrote after the 9/11 terror attacks that has taken on a new meaning this summer. “I’ve spent my life singing about where we have succeeded and where we’ve come up short in living up to our civic ideals and our dreams. I always just thought that was my job. Things are happening right now in my home that are altering the very nature of our country’s democracy and they’re simply too important to ignore.”

Springsteen’s first speech during the tour’s Manchester show on May 17 prompted a sharp rebuke from Trump on his Truth Social platform. “Springsteen is ‘dumb as a rock’… and this dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just ‘standard fare’. Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”

Springsteen did not respond directly. Instead, he repeated his messages at every concert across Europe. He delivered more political commentary in introducing his song “House of a Thousand Guitars” by saying: “The last check on power, after the checks and balances of government have failed, are the people. You and me. It’s the union of people around a common set of values. That’s all that stands between democracy and authoritarianism. So at the end of the day, all we’ve really got is each other.” In the song, Springsteen sings about “the criminal clown has stolen the throne / He steals what he can never own.”

His concerts also included the live debut of “Rainmaker,” about a con man, from his 2020 “Letter to You” album. At the concerts in Europe, Springsteen dedicates the song to “our dear leader,” with a line that goes: “Rainmaker says white’s black and black’s white / Says night’s day and day’s night.”

More than 75,000 filled Berlin’s Olympic Stadium on June 11, 44,500 were in Frankfurt on June 18, and another 51,000 watched his concert in the faded Ruhr River industrial town of Gelsenkirchen on June 27.

(Markus Schreiber / Associated Press)

He also changed one line in the song from “they don’t care or understand what it really takes for the sky to open up the land,” to “they don’t care or understand how easy it is to let freedom slip through your hands.”

Springsteen’s enormous popularity across Europe has long been on a different level than in the United States, and that gap could grow even wider in the future. Springsteen’s close friend and the band’s lead guitarist, Steve Van Zandt, recently observed in an interview with the German edition of Playboy magazine that the E Street Band may have lost half of its audience back home because of the group’s unabashed opposition to Trump. (The band’s concerts in the United States are often held in smaller indoor arenas.)

Bruce Springsteen, left, performs with Steven Van Zandt: at the Olympic Stadium in Berlin, Germany, Wednesday, June 11, 2025.

(Markus Schreiber / Associated Press)

But in Europe, Springsteen and his band have been reliably filling cavernous stadiums during the long, daylight-filled summertime evenings for decades with improbably enthusiastic crowds that sing along to the lyrics of his songs and spent most of the concerts on their feet dancing and cheering. There are also large numbers of hearty Springsteen fans from scores of countries who use their entire yearly allotment of vacation to follow him from show to show across the continent. This summer, Springsteen’s message has been amplified even more, sending many in the boomer-dominated crowds into states of near-ecstasy and attracting considerable media attention in countries across Europe.

“The message of his music always touched a deep nerve in Europe and especially Germany, but ever since Trump was elected president, Springsteen’s voice has been incredibly important for us,” said Katrin Schlemmer, a 56-year-old IT analyst from Zwickau who saw five Springsteen concerts in June — from Berlin to Prague to Frankfurt and two in San Sebastián, Spain. All told, Schlemmer has seen 60 Springsteen concerts in 11 countries around the world since her first in East Berlin in 1988 — a record-breaking, history-changing concert with more than 300,000 spectators that some historians believe may have contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall just 16 months later.

“A lot of Germans can’t fathom why the Americans elected someone like Trump,” said Schlemmer, who had the chance to thank Springsteen for the 1988 East Berlin concert at a chance meeting after a 2014 concert in Cape Town, South Africa. “We saw for ourselves how quickly a democracy was destroyed by an authoritarian. The alarm bells are ringing about what a danger Trump is. People love [Springsteen] here because he tells it like it is and because he is standing up to Trump.”

Stephan Cyrus, a 56-year-old manager from Hamburg, said Germans view Springsteen as a trustworthy American voice during a period of uncertainty.

“When Germans hear Springsteen speaking about his worries about the United States, they listen, because so many of us have so much admiration and longing for the United States and are worried about the country’s direction too,” said Cyrus, who saw the June 11 concert in Berlin. “He definitely touched us with his words.”

In one of his concert speeches, Springsteen goes after Trump without mentioning his name.

Spectators watch Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band perform at the Olympic Stadium, in Berlin, Germany, Wednesday, June 11, 2025.

(Markus Schreiber / Associated Press)

“There is some very weird, strange and dangerous s— going on out there right now. In America, they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now. In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world’s poorest children to sickness and death. This is happening now.”

Springsteen then adds: “In my country, they’re taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they are inflicting on loyal American workers. They’re rolling back historic civil rights legislation that led to a more just and plural society. They are abandoning our great allies and siding with dictators against those struggling for their freedom. They’re defunding American universities that won’t back down to their ideological demands. They’re removing residents off American streets and, without due process of law, are deporting them to foreign detention centers and prisons. This is all happening now. A majority of our elected representatives have failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government.”

He tells the audiences that those in the administration “have no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American.”

But Springsteen ends on a hopeful note, promising his audiences: “We’ll survive this moment.”

What a difference eight years makes. During President Trump’s first term, then-Sen. Marco Rubio pushed the president to expand his human rights diplomatic agenda. Rubio recognized that promoting human rights abroad is in the national interest. He urged the president to appoint an assistant secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor — commonly known as DRL — after the position was left vacant for nearly two years. He co-sponsored the Women, Peace and Security Act (ensuring that the U.S. includes women in international conflict negotiations), spoke out against the torture of gay men in Chechnya and co-sponsored the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.

So it is shocking that as secretary of State, Rubio is overseeing the near-total destruction of his department’s human rights and global justice policy shops and programs. Rubio knows this decision, one catastrophe among the many State Department cuts he’s contemplating, will undermine the enforcement of legislation he previously championed. It will also imperil decades of bipartisan foreign policy and leave the world a much more dangerous and unjust place. Congress must use its authorization and appropriation powers to protect this work.

We speak from experience. We represent the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, an organization of former State Department senior diplomats mandated to promote human rights and criminal justice globally, and to combat human trafficking. If the proposed DRL “reorganization” proceeds, critical infrastructure and expertise, which took decades and enormous political will to build, will be lost. It would also send a chilling message to the world, and to Americans: The U.S. no longer sees the quests for equality, global justice or human rights as foreign policy imperatives, or as priorities at all.

Rubio’s plan would shutter most of the State Department’s offices devoted to human rights and lay off an estimated 80% of the DRL staff, most of whom are experts in human rights and democracy. In a recent Substack post, he claimed these civil servants had become “left-wing activists [waging] vendettas against ‘anti-woke’ leaders.” Surely he knows they have instead proved themselves committed to serve the U.S. government under whatever administration is elected.

Rubio may claim that he is not eliminating DRL, but by stripping it of all policy functions, limiting it to dispensing minimal humanitarian assistance and undermining its ability to influence policy debates, his plan will be the last nail in the coffin in which the Trump administration buries America’s human rights work.

When difficult foreign policy debates are underway at the highest levels, there will be no U.S. experts at the table who specialize in human rights issues. Yet we know it is crucial that America’s foreign policy decisions balance the often precarious tension between human rights and economic and geopolitical issues.

The destruction of DRL means many important initiatives will cease altogether. As one example, the bureau previously funded a global network of civil society organizations working to reintegrate detained children of Islamic State insurgents in Iraq. Without intervention, these children and their mothers (often victims themselves) would have been indefinitely trapped in refugee camps and left susceptible to radicalization and terrorist recruitment. This lifesaving work — which made Americans safer by disrupting the cycle of anti-American extremism — was done at minimal cost to U.S. taxpayers. Now this meticulously crafted network will probably disintegrate, empowering hostile regimes overnight and imperiling the victims of Islamic extremism.

Per the plan, the few surviving DRL offices would be rebranded along ideological lines. The Office of International Labor Affairs would become the Office of Free Markets and Fair Labor, allegedly to prioritize American workers. But a different message is clear: The State Department is eviscerating efforts to prevent human trafficking, forced labor and union-busting overseas, despite the fact that such practices only make it harder for America’s workers and manufacturers to compete in a global economy.

Trump’s foreign policy perversely twists human rights causes into their regressive opposites. For instance, Rubio plans to cancel the role of special representative for racial equity and justice created by the Biden administration — a long-overdue position given the destabilizing role of racial injustice in countries around the world (including our own). Now the department touts racist narratives about “civilizational allies” and asserts that human rights derive from “western values.”

That assertion is offensive, dangerous and wrong. For starters, the flagship human rights instrument is the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Labeling human rights “western” only encourages dictators around the world to falsely claim the efforts are a Trojan horse for American imperialism. Such framing may put a target on the backs of activists in repressive regimes where advocating for the most marginalized — LGBTQ+ people for example — can be a death sentence.

The Rubio overhaul of the State Department may not seem as alarming as the administration’s scorched-earth tactics elsewhere, such as the total elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development. But his plan — and his weak and unsubstantiated justification for it — should raise alarms because foreign policy mirrors domestic policy and vice versa. Indeed, we fear that America’s retreat from human rights and democracy on the global stage is a preview for more repression to come here at home.

Congress will have to decide whether to approve Secretary Rubio’s dismantling of offices that fight for human rights and justice, a plan Sen. Rubio would have strenuously rejected less than a year ago. As the U.S. confronts emboldened adversaries, rising authoritarianism and increasing instability in the Middle East and elsewhere, senators and representatives would do well to remember that nations that promote and protect human rights and the rule of law are more likely to enjoy peace, prosperity and stability — conditions that used to define the U.S. to the rest of the world and that we need now more than ever.

Desirée Cormier Smith is the former State Department special representative for racial equity and justice. Kelly M. Fay Rodríguez is the former special representative for international labor affairs, and Beth Van Schaack the former ambassador for global criminal justice. The full list of founders of the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice is available at thealliancefordiplomacyandjustice.org.

Spouses experiencing health emergencies alone, because their loved ones are serving on the streets of Los Angeles. Troops fatigued by a mission they weren’t prepared for. Children of active-duty troops left without their parents, who were deployed on U.S. soil.

Such incidents are happening because of the Trump administration’s decision to send troops to Los Angeles, said Brandi Jones, organizing director for the Secure Families Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates for military spouses, children and veterans.

“We’ve heard from families who have a concern that what their loved ones have sacrificed and served in protection of the Constitution, and all the rights it guarantees, are really under siege right now in a way they could never have expected,” Jones said Thursday during a virtual news conference.

California National Guard troops stand outside a federal building in downtown Los Angeles during a June 14 protest.

(Zurie Pope / Los Angeles Times)

On the eve of Independence Day, veterans, legal scholars and advocates for active-duty troops warned that sending troops to quell protests in California’s largest city threatens democratic norms. Under a 147-year-old law, federal troops are barred from being used for civilian law enforcement.

Dan Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel who is now a law professor at Ohio Northern University, described this state of affairs during the news conference as “exactly the situation we fought for independence from,” adding that President Trump is “making America militarized again.”

Though 150 National Guard troops were released from protest duty on Tuesday, according to a news release from U.S Northern Command, around 3,950 remain in Los Angeles alongside 700 Marines, who are protecting federal property from protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions.

Trump has defended the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, saying on his social media platform that the city “would be burning to the ground right now” if they were not sent. He has suggested doing the same in other U.S. cities, calling the L.A. deployment “the first, perhaps of many,” during an Oval Office news conference.

Troops in L.A. were federalized under Title 10 of the United States code, and their purview is narrow. They do not have the authority to arrest, only to detain individuals before handing them over to police, and they are only obligated to protect federal property and personnel, according to the U.S Northern Command.

Though Marines detained a U.S. Army veteran in early June, the most active involvement they and the National Guard have had in ICE’s activity is providing security during arrests, according to reports from Reuters and the CBS show “Face the Nation.”

“The administration has unnecessarily and provocatively deployed the military in a way that reflects the very fears that our founding fathers had,” Maurer said. “Using the military as a police force in all but name.”

“The closer they [the military] act to providing security around a perimeter … the closer they act to detaining individuals, the closer they act to questioning individuals that are suspected of being illegal immigrants, the closer the military is pushed to that Posse Comitatus line,” Maurer said, referring to the law that prohibits use of troops in a law enforcement capacity on American soil. “That is a very dangerous place to be.”

Other speakers argued that the use of troops in Los Angeles jeopardizes service members, placing them in a environment they were never trained for, and pitting them against American citizens.

“Our Marines are our nation’s shock troops, and it’s entirely inappropriate that they’re deployed in the streets of Los Angeles,” said Joe Plenzler, a Marine combat veteran who served as platoon commander, weapons platoon commander and company executive officer for the 2nd Batallion 7th Marines, which is now deployed in downtown L.A.

Plenzler recalled that more than half of the men he served with in 2nd Batallion came from Spanish-speaking families, and some were in this country as legal permanent residents with green cards and had yet to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.

Members of the California National Guard are deployed at a June 14 protest in downtown L.A.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

“Think about what might be going through their heads right now, as they’re being ordered to help ICE arrest and deport hardworking people who look a lot like people they would see at their own family reunions,” Plenzler said.

Plenzler also contrasted the training Marines receive with those of civilian law enforcement.

“We are not cops,” Plenzler said. “Marines aren’t trained in de-escalatory tactics required in community policing. We don’t deploy troops in civilian settings, typically because it increases the risk of excessive force, wrongful deaths and erosion of public trust.”

During the 1992 L.A. riots, Marines responded with the LAPD to a domestic dispute. One officer asked the Marines to cover him, and they, mistakenly believing he was asking them to open fire, fired 200 rounds into the home.

“Our troops are under-prepared, overstretched and overwhelmed,” said Christopher Purdy, founder of the nonprofit veteran advocacy group The Chamberlain Network and a veteran of the Army National Guard.

“Guard units doing these missions are often doing them with minimal preparation,” Purdy said, stating that many units are given a single civil unrest training block a year.

“When I deployed to Iraq, we spent weeks of intense training on cultural competency, local laws and customs, how we should operate in a blend of civil and combat operations,” Purdy said. “If we wouldn’t accept that kind of shortcut for a combat deployment, why are we accepting it now when troops are being put out on the front line in American streets?”

Each speaker reflected on the importance of holding the federal government accountable, not only for its treatment of active-duty troops, but also for how these men and women are being used on American soil.

“I reflect this Fourth of July on both the promise and the responsibility of freedom. Military family readiness is force readiness,” Jones said. “At Secure Families Initiative, we’re hearing from active-duty families: You can’t keep the force if families are stretched thin — or if troops are used against civilians.”

Added Maurer: “The rule of law means absolutely nothing if those that we democratically entrust to enforce it faithfully ignore it at will. And I think that’s where we are.”

This article contains many spoilers for Season 3 of Netflix’s “Squid Game.”

“Squid Game” is a twisty, twisted thriller, with ordinary, financially stressed people playing children’s games to the death for the amusement of the hidden wealthy. Beneath that surface, creator, writer and director Hwang Dong-hyuk has been embedding sociopolitical commentary amid the shock and awe of protagonist Gi-hun’s (Lee Jung-jae) personal roller-coaster ride; the characters’ desperation as the saga ends forces those messages to poke through the slick, candy-colored exterior.

“It was a result of elevation of the themes and stories,” said Hwang of those ideas becoming more clearly voiced. They “became more upfront and intense just as a natural course of the story unfolding.”

The global phenomenon, still Netflix’s most-watched non-English show ever (its first two seasons are No. 1 and 2 on the streamer’s all-time list, with nearly 600 million views to date, according to Netflix), ends on its own terms with the release of its third and final season Friday. And what an arc everyman Gi-hun will have completed. How better to represent Hwang’s themes of end-stage, winners-and-losers capitalism, with its warping, destructive power, and how the ill-intentioned can exploit democracy’s flaws, than to depict an ordinary person buffeted by the unseen hand of pain for profit?

“You can say this is a story of those who have become losers of the game, and also those of us who are shaken to our core because of the chaotic political landscape,” said Hwang, who with Lee, spoke via an interpreter on a video call earlier this month from New York. “I wanted to focus in Season 3 on how in this world, where incessant greed is always fueled, it’s like a jungle — the strong eating the weak, where people climb higher by stepping on other people’s heads.”

Lee Jung-jae as Seong Gi-hun in final season of Netflix’s “Squid Game.”

(No Ju-han / Netflix)

Gi-hun’s hands become bloodied in the competition in Season 3, Hwang said. “That’s the first time he kills someone [in the games]. This person who symbolized goodness, the original sin is now on him because of what society has done to him,” he said. “How does he pick himself up from that? That’s the heart of Season 3. In a way, we’re all put in this situation due to the capitalist society and chaotic political situation. Gi-hun symbolizes what all of us go through these days.”

When we meet him in Season 1, Gi-hun is down and out, an inveterate gambler. Through Season 1’s horrific gantlet of murderous kids’ games, his exterior is scraped away with a rusty edge until all that’s left is a flawed but good man. Gi-hun is someone who sees what he believes with clarity, while becoming the suddenly rich champion of the games.

But after he reaches that peak, Season 2 plunges him back down the roller coaster as he becomes obsessed with vengeance against the elite voyeurs who fund the game and the Front Man (Lee Byung-hun), who oversees it. Righteous anger carries Gi-hun to the brink of his goal of destroying the games, only to see it all brutally dashed. Season 3 finds him a broken man, near catatonic with guilt. Without him to guide the less bloodthirsty players, the games will enter a fearsome phase of all-out mayhem, from which unexpectedly emerges a chance at redemption for the battered protagonist.

“All of those changes within Gi-hun are depicted in such minute detail” in Hwang’s writing, said Lee, “so nuanced and with so many layers. You’ll see Gi-hun have a change of heart. Sometimes his beliefs will be shaken. But despite all of that, he will continue to struggle to find hope and his will.

“All of those changes within Gi-hun are depicted in such minute detail, so nuanced and with so many layers,” Lee Jung-jae said of his character and Hwang Dong-hyuk’s writing.

(Justin Jun Lee / For The Times)

“All I can say is, I’m a very lucky man. You don’t come by characters like Gi-hun every day. It’s been a true honor,” he adds.

Lee’s public appearances in support of “Squid Game” have provided an almost comic contrast with Gi-hun. He’s movie-star handsome, elegant, always sharply dressed. On the show, especially as Gi-hun deteriorates in Season 3, he’s wrecked.

“Jung-jae went on this extremely harsh diet for over a year so he could really portray, externally, the pain and the brokenness, to really express how famished and barren he is, both mentally and physically,” Hwang said.

Gi-hun isn’t the only person the games destroy. Another hallmark of the show is its deft development of characters into fan favorites, coupled with its “Game of Thrones”-like willingness to unceremoniously kill them. Viewers will be sharpening their pitchforks when trans commando Hyun-ju (Park Sung-hoon), a.k.a. Player 120, dies ignominiously in Season 3. Hwang is already braced for the backlash.

“It’s not me who did it! It was 333,” he exclaimed, blaming the murderer.

Hwang said when he watched the first assembly edit of that death, “I wrote and directed and everything, I knew it’s coming, but it was still painful. It was like, ‘Oh, come on, come on.’ ”

“For some characters, I would see them go and I’d feel really sad … I would think, ‘Director Hwang is such a cruel man,’” Lee said.

1

2

1. Hyun-ju (Park Sung-hoon) in Season 3 of “Squid Game.” “I wrote and directed and everything, I knew it’s coming, but it was still painful,” Hwang Dong-hyuk said. 2. Jun-hee (Jo Yu-ri), a pregnant contestant in the games, was another casualty. (No Ju-han / Netflix)

When Hwang asks what death in particular made him feel that way, Lee doesn’t hesitate to cite another beloved character, pregnant contestant Jun-hee (Jo Yu-ri), calling that Season 3 death “heartbreaking.”

Lee’s sensitive, evolving turn as Gi-hun — deeply human amid the madness, paranoia and murder set in bright green and pink surroundings — has made the character the ideal litmus test for Hwang’s critique of an economic system designed to produce titanic winners and losers who face annihilation. He’s a living symbol of Hwang’s themes.

“I feel like Director Hwang is truly an artist,” Lee said. “I mean something akin to a concept artist. Because when he creates his visuals, not only are they extremely pleasing to the eye; he focuses on the meaning behind them. He [stacks] images on top of one another, almost as if building a Lego castle. Each little block has meaning: each dialogue, each editing flow and [each use of] the musical score.”

As Season 3 reaches a boil, some of Hwang’s symbolism becomes less subtle. In one game, contestants clutch keys suspiciously resembling crucifixes as one player leads others with fervor, for better or worse. One character’s moment of triumph occurs before a painted rainbow (rainbow flags are also associated with the LGBTQ+ community in Korea). And Hwang’s nuanced critique of democracy comes to the fore.

“I feel like Director Hwang is truly an artist,” said Lee Jung-jae of the show’s creator. “I mean something akin to a concept artist. Because when he creates his visuals, not only are they extremely pleasing to the eye; he focuses on the meaning behind them.

(Justin Jun Lee / For The Times)

Unlike Season 1, in which contestants had one chance to vote to end the games, in Seasons 2 and 3, votes are taken after each contest; as more players die, the pot swells larger and larger. With only a score or so of participants left, a vote to quit means all would leave alive, and with substantial cash. Voting to continue means, explicitly, they will kill to become obscenely wealthy.

“In the past, at the time of elections, despite our differences, we all came together; there was more tolerance through the process of conflict,” Hwang said. “I don’t think that is anymore the case. Rather, elections [have only driven] societies into greater divides. I wanted to explore those themes in Seasons 2 and 3; that’s why I included the voting in each round.”

Hwang loudly calls out the flaw of democracy that allows the barest of majorities to subject all to nightmarish policies — even more nightmarish for those who voted against them. The ruthless winners keep reminding the others in Season 3 it was a “free and democratic vote.”

“That is not to say that I have a different answer,” he said. “I wanted to raise the question because I believe it is time for us to try to find the answer. In Season 1, I looked at the flaws of the economic system that creates so many losers due to this unlimited competition. In Season 2, I depicted the failure of the political system.

“Coming into Season 3, because the economic system has failed us, politics have failed us, it seems like we have no hope,” Hwang added. “What hope do we have as a human race when we can no longer control our own greed? I wanted to explore that. And in particular, I wanted to [pose] that question to myself.”

And what has he found? Does he still believe in humanity?

“Well, I don’t have the answer,” Hwang said. “But I have to admit, honestly, I think I’ve become more cynical, working on ‘Squid Game.’”

A tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Iran has slightly dampened the threat that the United States could be further dragged into an international conflict.

But many Americans are approaching the Fourth of July with a sense of trepidation if not outright fear — that such a war could still be on the horizon and that there is currently an increased risk of a terrorist attack in America because of it.

For so many reasons, we are a nation on edge. Which is why we have to be careful to not allow our fears to overtake our commitment to civil rights.

“Autocrats almost always use emergencies, sometimes real ones, sometimes exaggerated ones, and sometimes invented ones … to accumulate power,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and author of “How Democracies Die.”

None of the political experts I spoke with in past days said they thought President Trump planned the Iran bombing for his domestic agenda — that would be really extreme. But most shared Levitsky’s concern that it is in moments of anxiety, when society is apprehensive of external threats, that authoritarians find the most fertile ground for increasing their domestic power — because too often, people willingly give up freedoms in exchange for perceived safety.

Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA law professor who advised the Obama-Biden transition team on immigration policy, said that trade-off means “the situation with Iran and Trump’s immigration policy are very closely intertwined.”

No place is more likely to see that intersection of international and domestic policy more bluntly than California, and Los Angeles in particular.

Los Angeles is a “test case,” Brad Jones told me, where the Trump administration is already pushing to see how far it can go. He’s a political science professor at UC Davis.

“This is a very opportunistic presidency, and any opportunity that they can use to forward their immigration agenda, I think they’ll take full advantage of it,” Jones said.

We already have the Marines and National Guard on the streets, and under federal control, supposedly because Los Angeles is in the grip of violent chaos. Although Angelenos know this is ridiculous, the courts have, for now, sided with Trump that this deployment of troops on U.S. soil is within his power. And much of America, inundated with right-wing versions of current immigration protests, is seeing on a daily basis a narrative of lawlessness that seems to justify Trump’s crackdowns — including the arrest or detention of Democratic lawmakers.

Benjamin Radd is a professor at UCLA, an expert on Iran and a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations. He was featured in the documentary “War Game” last year about how a military insurgency could play out in the United States.

Not long ago — before the National Guard was deployed in L.A. against the will of Gov. Gavin Newsom — Radd was hired by a veterans group, which he declined to identify, to game out what would happen if Trump federalized the National Guard against the will of governors and turned them on the American public.

“And lo and behold, here we are now,” Radd said.

In his simulation, the pretend Trump didn’t invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that could further a president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States.

But in the real world, it’s a concern that Trump would — either because of a genuine threat, or a Trumped-up one. Rudd said that would be a “big red line.”

“I’m waiting to see if this Donald Trump will actually do that, because invoking the act will be able to give him more of those emergency powers that right now are being stymied at the courts,” he said.

Los Angeles, Rudd points out, is home to a large community of Iranian Americans, of which he is a member.

It’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to dream up a scenario in which the government sees this community as a potential threat if the conflict in the Middle East continues, as Japanese Americans were once viewed as a threat during World War II. Rudd said he didn’t see the likelihood of a mass internment, but pointed out that the government has already detained and deported students speaking out on the Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza.

“Who gets swept up in that when you’re dealing with ethically diverse metropolises like Los Angeles that have a complex background and mix of people?” he asks.

Already, the administration has announced the arrests of 11 undocumented Iranians across the U.S. in the last few days.

“We have been saying we are getting the worst of the worst out — and we are,” Homeland Security Department Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “We don’t wait until a military operation to execute; we proactively deliver on President Trump’s mandate to secure the homeland.”

Trump’s “entire playbook on immigration has been to characterize immigration as invasion and immigrants as invaders,” Motomura said. “Having a military conflict with Iran allows Trump to link any actions by Iran or its proxies as further evidence of invasion … and as even further proof that he must take drastic emergency measures against foes both domestic and foreign.”

Levitsky said that the “Trump administration is clearly learning how useful it is” to portray immigration as a national security emergency. He points out that the deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador this year was supposedly necessary because it was depicted as an attack on America by members of the Tren de Aragua gang, although there was little evidence of such a planned incursion.

But the narrative of immigration as a foreign offensive has stuck — remember when “shithole countries” were supposedly purposefully emptying prisons and mental hospitals to send murderers and rapists to the U.S.?

And so many people accepted whatever erosion of rights these deportations meant in exchange for the perception of living in safer communities — never mind that the reality is that most of those now trapped in that Salvadoran prison are not violent criminals.

Success with that tactic has left the administration increasingly eager to capitalize on fearmongering and “looking for ways to use language like insurgency or emergency that frees it from from legal constraints,” Levitsky said. “And war is a great way to do it.”

Jones warned that even just stoking concerns that “there’s cells or there’s people on the inside” wishing to do us harm could be justification enough for more disintegration of rights.

Although all of that sounds dire, it’s important to remember that it hasn’t happened yet, and it may never happen. And if it does, it does not mean there’s no recourse to protect our civil rights — the people still have power.

“There isn’t a single strategy, a single slogan, a single movement, a single group, a single leader, a single protest,” Levitsky said. “There are literally 1,000 different ways for people to express their opposition to what’s going on, and what’s important is that Americans engage.”

Part of that engagement is accepting that democracy is not a given, and that American democracy holds no special powers to survive, he said.

“Frankly, that’s why we’re losing our democracy,” Levitsky said. “Brazilians don’t have this problem. South Koreans do not have this problem. … Germans don’t have this problem. People in Spain don’t have this problem. Chileans, Argentinians do not have this problem.

“All those societies have a collective memory of authoritarianism. All those societies know what it means to lose a democracy,” he said. “Americans don’t have an idea.”

Our greatest threat right now isn’t Trump or what he may or may not do. It’s our inability to believe that authoritarianism really is creeping up on us, that it could happen here.

And that all it might take is denial with a chaser of fear to topple a democracy that once felt unbreakable.

I’ve watched two disturbing videos in the past day of federal authorities acting with frightening disregard for decency and democracy as they arrest immigrants.

At least, I think they are federal authorities. But these days, who knows?

The alleged officers detaining hundreds if not thousands of people each day in California and across the country are often masked. They sometimes refuse to answer questions, including which agency they represent. They threaten force — and even use it to make arrests of bystanders — when they are challenged.

In the first video I watched, a man in an unmarked car detains another man sitting on a bus bench in Pasadena. The man presumed to be a federal agent has on a vest that simply says “Police” and a cheap black ski mask that covers every bit of his face — the kind that looks like it was purchased on Amazon and that we have previously most associated with criminals such as robbers and rapists. A few of his colleagues are in the background, some also seemingly masked.

If these men approached me or one of my kids dressed like that, I would run. I would fight. I would certainly not take his word that he was “police” and had the right to force me into his car.

In the second video, another presumed federal agent jumps out of his unmarked vehicle and draws his weapon on a civilian attempting to take a photo of the license plate.

Yes — he points his gun at a civilian who is not threatening him or committing a crime. Folks, maybe you consider it a bad idea to try to photograph what may or may not be a legitimate police operation, but it is not illegal. This alleged officer appears to have simply not liked what was happening, and threatened to shoot the person upsetting him. The man taking the photo ran away, but what would have happened had he not?

These actions by alleged authorities are examples of impunity, and it is what happens when accountability is lost.

“It’s terrifying to be assaulted by people that you can’t be sure are law enforcement and who seem to be hiding their identity from you,” David Sklansky told me. He’s a law professor at Stanford and an expert on policing. He said there are times when secrecy by authorities can be justified, but it should be the exception, not the rule.

“The seizure of people by agents of the state who don’t identify themselves as agents of the state is a tool that has a long and ugly history of being used by authoritarian regimes,” he said.

ICE has claimed that its officers have a need and right to remain anonymous because threats and attacks against them have dramatically increased. The agency has been publicizing that its staff has seen a 413% increase in assaults against them, and that they and their families have been doxxed.

Speaking on the New York Times podcast “The Daily,” President Trump’s top border policy advisor, Tom Homan, said that his officers are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances.

“It’s not about intimidation,” Homan said. “ICE officers are wearing masks because they’ve been doxxed by the thousands. Their families have been doxxed. ICE officers’ pictures have shown up on trees and telephone poles. Death threats are sky-high. I know because I’ve been doxxed 1,000 times myself.”

You know what? I believe ICE officers are getting doxxed and threatened.

Any violent attack on law enforcement should be condemned.

And while we are at it, I don’t have any issue with deporting dangerous criminals. For today, I’m leaving aside the issue of whether Trump’s aggressive drive to deport people is good or bad. This isn’t about what is happening with these deportations, but about how authorities are exercising their power.

Threatening a law enforcement official is a crime. Doxxing is a crime. These agencies have the resources to track down, arrest and prosecute anyone who breaks those laws. They should absolutely do that.

Instead, federal authorities are hiding, apparently too frightened of online provocateurs and in-person hecklers to do their duty in plain sight.

But judges are being doxxed and don’t wear masks. Journalists are being doxxed and don’t wear masks. Politicians are being doxxed — and even killed — and are still doing their jobs out in the open. Which raises the question: Is it really not about intimidation?

“Quite frankly, I’ve had lots of guns pointed at me. I’ve had lots of threats against my life,” Lt. Diane Goldstein told me. “I never once wore a mask because I was afraid.”

Goldstein is the executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a nonprofit composed of justice system authorities who advocate for better policies. She was also the first female lieutenant in the Redondo Beach Police Department, where she worked for more than 20 years, including on undercover assignments.

She points out that accountability demands some way to attach actions to individuals. Take that officer who pulled the gun on the license plate photographer.

“If one of my officers would have done that, I would have put him on an administrative leave, taken his gun away and initiated an internal affairs investigation,” she said. “There is no constitutional reason for him to jump out of a car and point a gun in that type of aggressive fashion at an ordinary citizen.”

However, we likely will never get to ask that officer what he was thinking — if he saw a threat that justified lethal force — because there is no easy way of identifying him. Forget who he is personally, we don’t even know what agency he is from.

“You have no idea if it’s the FBI, if it’s the DEA, if it’s ICE, if it’s CBP,” said Goldstein, rattling off the acronyms for various federal authorities. “There is no accountability and transparency.”

Sklansky points out that accountability doesn’t necessarily require a name or face. Although there is no law that requires it, federal authorities could simply put their badge number and agency name someplace visible. Voila! Accountability and safety for officers.

“Lots of law enforcement works this way,” he said.

Failing to provide any kind of trustworthy identification causes its own dangers, both Sklansky and Goldstein told me. People are required by law not to interfere with law enforcement doing their duty. But if you don’t know it’s law enforcement and fear you are witnessing an attack or are the victim of one, the situation is different.

Goldstein said that she worries about violence if bystanders think they are in the midst of a crime, or that local law enforcement will be called to intervene in what appears to be a kidnapping or assault.

“People can’t tell if they’re crooks or they’re law enforcement,” Goldstein said of officers who mask or hide their affiliation.

“Someone’s going to get hurt. A citizen is going to get hurt, a local cop is going to get hurt or a federal agent is going to get hurt. Their tactics are dangerous and putting the community in danger,” she said.

That fear that people are posing as law enforcement is real. Last week, a Minnesota legislator and her husband were killed by a gunman posing as a police officer. That same gunman earlier also went to the home of another politician and his wife and shot them as well, though they are expected to survive — their 28-year-old daughter called 911 after being shielded from the bullets by her mom.

The shooter banged on the front door of his victims, demanding to be let inside because he was law enforcement. Since then, articles are popping up, pointing out that people have a right to ask questions before just assuming that guy with the badge is really a cop.

After that attack, St. Cloud Police Chief Jeff Oxton sought to quell fears of fake cops roaming the streets by putting out a statement that stressed that it is “important that our public has confidence in the identification of our police officers.”

Of course it is important. In fact, it’s vital to democracy and public safety. The might of law derives from our trust in those empowered to enforce it, our willingness to respect their authority because it comes with both boundaries and responsibilities. The death of George Floyd and the protests that followed show just how tenuous, and how vital, that trust is.

An anonymous man in a ski mask does not inspire that trust, and does not deserve it.

In the minds of liberals, democracy is a society that is open, tolerant, and diverse. However, history demonstrates that the most tolerant regimes occasionally have to go beyond, even if that means violating their own principles, in order to remain. This paradox is exactly what explains the concept of militant democracy: a variety of democratic self-defense that gives the right to restrict some of the rights because the main one—the democratic order—still has to be protected.

What Is Militant Democracy?

The idea of militant democracy was first discussed by a German scholar called Karl Loewenstein in the 1930s. While Loewenstein was exploring the downfall of the Weimar Republic, he claimed that democracies must not be passive if they are to survive against those who want to destroy them from within.

Within this concept, a democratic power is no longer the weak and helpless one. It may, thus, use legal and constitutional means to prevent radical parties—be they fascist, communist, or religiously radical—from abusing the very freedoms that democracy grants them to commit their acts of treason, thereby driving the democracy to annihilation.

Tools of Democratic Self-Defense

Modern-day militant democracies employ various instruments to secure their foundations:

·       Prohibiting extremist parties or movements (e.g., the ban of the neo-Nazi SRP by Germany in 1952 and of the Communist Party in 1956)

·       Constitutional clauses that forbid organizations if they are considered “hostile to democracy”

·       Limiting freedom of expression or gathering when these are used for the propagation of hate or the establishment of an authoritarian regime

·       Ensuring the loyalty of public officials towards the democratic values through monitoring of their activities

Through these tools, the democracies are the ones that are controversial with these questions of moral and political problems. Can a democracy still be accepted if it restricts participation? Does the suppression of any kind of speech in order to defend tolerance at the end of it actually lead to the loss of that?

Between Protection and Overreach

Critics point out that militant democracy may be misused. Governments might use it as an excuse not to protect democracy but, instead, to go after their opponents. The purges in Turkey after the coup are, for instance, examples of such self-preservation. However, they are considered by many to be the signs of an authoritarian regime.

The demarcation between “anti-democratic” and just “illiberal” is often very vague. The populist parties—like Fidesz in Hungary or Law and Justice in Poland—are acting within the democratic systems but openly negate the liberal norms. Should the concept of militant democracy be applied to them? And who is in charge of making this decision?

A 21st-Century Comeback

Nowadays, as authoritarianism is on the rise and there are more and more cases of disinformation, the concept of militant democracy is coming back.

• Besides the extremist groups of the right and left, Verfassungsschutz also keeps an eye on parties that they consider to be actively working against the constitutional order in Germany.
• Recently, in France and Austria, the government has decided to prohibit some Islamist organizations because they are not compatible with republican values.
• Since the time Ukraine has been waging a war with Russia, it has forbidden the pro-Russian parties on the basis of national security.

At the level of the European Union, instruments such as Article 7 and the Conditionality Regulation are a manifestation of the concept of militant democracy in a power-sharing setting—they are means of pursuing the protection of the Union’s constitutional identity through the people’s mandate within the Union.

In Romania, the candidacy of Călin Georgescu, an intellectual nationalist and a local United Nations official, became a disaster because they effectively eliminated him from the race for political office. While his presidential bid was embraced by some segments of the public, his past affiliations and unorthodox views have led to institutional resistance and public denunciation. Proponents of this view claim that elites are overreaching; on the other hand, some people see it as a safety measure to prevent the spread of the extremist ideologies that are hidden under the pop era rhetoric—thus, the example of militant democracy.

A Difficult Balance

Militant democracy is a fascinating concept because it tries to protect democracy, but at the same time it can weaken it. The experience of the Weimar Republic is a very interesting one—it shows that democracies can be destroyed from the inside, usually due to their own excessive tolerance and lack of decisiveness. This is still true today. Democracies are at risk not only from external sources but also from insiders who use democratic freedoms to destroy democracy. This paradox makes the concept of militant democracy very important, yet quite complex: it is a protective agent intended to defend democratic order, but if it is used in a wrong way, it can become the very thing that it is fighting against.

Simultaneously, to protect democracy is not supposed to turn into a justification for the expansion of authoritarianism and political repression masked as democratic defense. There is a danger of misuse—where governments turn militancy democracy instruments into weapons to repress the political opposition that is not only to limit the protests or to consolidate power—that is always there. Hence, it is necessary that these steps are taken in a just, honest, and respectful way of the law. The rightfulness of the militant democracy rests on strict control and fidelity to democratic principles, guaranteeing that the attempts to defend democracy are not those that undermine the democratic matter.

To sum up, a militant democracy isn’t about limiting ideas but rather about saving a democratic space where ideas are not only allowed but also protected by safeguards that ensure the democratic order. The idea also asks for a subtle synergy—sufficient determination to make sure that anti-democratic elements cannot trick freedoms while being open enough to keep political pluralism and healthy discussions alive. In the current era, where we have witnessed an upsurge in populism, foreign meddling, and internal rifts, this equilibrium has become more vital than ever. Tolerance can’t be boundless if democracy wants to live on; hence, there have to be conditions—very cautiously and equitably implemented—that serve as the defense of democracy against those who are plotting to conquer it from the inside.