Category: Authoritarian

Columbia University Interim President Resigns Amid Controversial Trump-Era Policies and Campus Turmoil

Columbia University’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, will resign and return to her role at the medical center, as announced by the university’s board of trustees. This decision highlights the ongoing turmoil at Columbia and follows the university’s recent controversial concessions to the Trump administration aimed at securing $400 million in federal funding. Armstrong was chosen as interim president during a challenging time for the university, reflecting the significant pressure it faced.

Columbia’s administration is implementing sweeping changes to address the Trump administration’s allegations of inadequate action against antisemitism connected to pro-Gaza protests on campus. These changes include the establishment of a new campus police force, restrictions on face masks, and the removal of faculty governance over certain academic departments, actions that many scholars and activists have condemned as an alarming capitulation to external political pressure.

The leadership upheaval at Columbia is not an isolated incident; it follows the resignation of Minouche Shafik, Columbia’s previous president, in 2024 amid severe backlash from students for her handling of protests against the university’s policies and the actions of law enforcement against demonstrators. Shafik’s tenure was marked by student occupations and widespread unrest, highlighting a campus increasingly embroiled in political controversy.

In addition to the leadership changes, Columbia has faced allegations of retaliating against non-citizen student activists involved in pro-Palestine protests amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. The recent detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card-holder and student activist, has raised serious concerns about the preservation of free speech rights on campus during a period of escalating political tension.

David J. Greenwald, chair of the Columbia Board of Trustees, expressed gratitude for Armstrong’s service while acknowledging the turbulence surrounding the university’s leadership. Claire Shipman, a journalist and Columbia alum, has been appointed acting president as the search for a new leader begins. This sequence of events signals a troubling trend of politicization in educational institutions under the influence of the Trump administration.

Trump’s Executive Order Targets Smithsonian to Censor American History Insights

Donald Trump has issued an executive order that directly targets the Smithsonian Institution, asserting that it promotes what he deems “divisive, race-based ideology.” This controversial move, labeled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” aims to erase exhibitions that discuss racial themes by halting federal funding for such programs. The order mandates Vice President JD Vance to eliminate what Trump calls “improper” displays from the Smithsonian’s museums and the National Zoo, fundamentally censoring historical narratives.

The executive order seeks to restore federal properties that have “been improperly removed or changed,” a thinly veiled attack against attempts to showcase America’s complex history, particularly regarding race. Trump’s focus is not merely on museum exhibitions but extends to shaping the broader cultural narrative of the country, enhancing the authoritarian flavor of his presidency by controlling public memory and historical interpretation.

A significant point of contention within the order is the accusation against the planned American Women’s History Museum, falsely claiming it aims to “recognize men as women.” Additionally, Trump’s directive aims to delegitimize the National Museum of African American History and Culture, alleging that recognizing values like hard work and individualism as part of “White culture” is in itself divisive. These fabrications reveal an extremist ideology intended to repress accurate representations of America’s racial history.

Moreover, the executive order coincides with Trump’s broader strategy of dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across federal institutions, a campaign that has already faced numerous legal challenges. The aggressive nature of these actions showcases Trump’s intent to redefine American cultural institutions as platforms for ideological conformity rather than diversity and inclusion.

Overall, Trump’s executive order constitutes a direct assault on the intellectual and cultural diversity that characterizes American society. The effort to reframe the country’s history and diminish the significance of exhibitions that reflect upon its racial past is emblematic of a trend toward authoritarianism, echoing tactics employed by regimes seeking to reshape public narratives for political gain.

(h/t: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjy1jmvvwzo.amp)

Trump Ally Alina Habba Takes Interim US Attorney Role

Alina Habba, a staunch defender of Donald Trump and his personal lawyer, was sworn in as the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey amid a deeply troubled political landscape. Her role signifies a troubling partisan shift within the justice system as she steps into a position traditionally associated with impartial law enforcement. Habba’s appointment raises major concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest, especially given her previous defense of Trump in various high-profile legal battles.

Trump praised Habba during her swearing-in, claiming that she would help “defeat the corrupt and grotesque weaponization of our justice system.” This statement highlights the alarming trend of politicians attempting to weaponize governmental institutions for partisan gain, undermining the principles of democracy and justice. It suggests that Habba may prioritize political loyalty over rule of law, reflecting Trump’s broader strategy of placing allies in positions of authority regardless of their qualifications.

Prior to her appointment, Habba faced significant legal repercussions, having been sanctioned nearly $1 million by a federal judge for a “continuing pattern of misuse of the courts.” This exemplifies her questionable professional conduct and raises serious ethical questions about her capability to serve as a federal prosecutor. Instead of upholding justice, there is a palpable risk that Habba will transform the position into a tool for targeting political adversaries, particularly Democrats, echoing Trump’s vendetta mentality.

During her time as Trump’s spokesperson and senior adviser, she consistently echoed his unfounded claims regarding election fraud and the legitimacy of his opponents. Habba’s public comments betray a willingness to ignore facts in favor of an aggressive partisan narrative, a trait that may well carry into her new role. Her statement that she has been through “some very dark days” with Trump signifies an alignment more suited for a loyalist than a legal steward, further eroding the foundational tenets of impartiality that should govern the judiciary.

With Habba now in this position, there are significant implications for the judicial integrity within New Jersey and beyond. The intertwining of Trump’s political machinery with the justice system threatens not only accountability but also the very fabric of democracy. As she assumes office, it becomes essential for the public and lawmakers to remain vigilant against this troubling transformation and demand accountability in the face of growing authoritarianism.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5220180-alina-habba-us-attorney-new-jersey/)

Trump’s Executive Order Targets Smithsonian’s Racial Exhibitions and Censors History

President Trump has issued an executive order attacking the Smithsonian Institution, accusing it of promoting “divisive, race-based ideology.” This declaration, titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” aims to halt federal funding for exhibitions that address racial themes, with Trump specifically targeting displays he claims divide Americans.

The order demands Vice President JD Vance eliminate what Trump labels “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian’s 19 museums and the National Zoo. Additionally, it seeks the restoration of various public monuments that were previously removed or altered, primarily those celebrating individuals associated with racism, such as Confederate leaders.

In the order, Trump alleges a coordinated effort to rewrite American history, wrongly claiming that objective facts are being replaced by a distorted narrative. He points to current exhibitions at institutions like the Smithsonian American Art Museum as examples of this supposed rewriting, particularly criticizing shows that explore race and its representation in American sculpture.

While the specifics of the administration’s intentions remain vague, there are indications that exhibitions addressing slavery and significant figures in African American history, such as Mary McLeod Bethune, may face censorship. The directive also calls out an exhibit at the upcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum regarding gender identity in sports, a move interpreted as an attack on discussions surrounding transgender and nonbinary inclusion.

Trump’s executive order further instructs Vance to work alongside Russell Vought from the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that future congressional appropriations prohibit funding for programs perceived as undermining shared American values. This is not Trump’s first conflict with the Smithsonian; previous actions have already curtailed discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion at these institutions.

Trump Considers Blocking Colleges from Accepting Foreign Students

The Trump administration is reportedly eyeing a drastic measure to curb immigration by potentially blocking colleges from enrolling foreign students who express support for Hamas. This initiative appears to stem from Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s “Catch and Revoke” program, which emphasizes revoking the visas of students seen protesting against the U.S. stance on Gaza. According to Axios, more than 300 foreign students have already had their visas revoked under this troubling directive.

The plan could have serious implications for colleges across the country, with the administration threatening to decertify institutions that enroll too many foreign students from backgrounds deemed politically undesirable. This tactic is believed to aim at suppressing dissent on campuses, which the Trump administration conflates with antisemitism, thereby undermining the fundamental principles of free speech and academic freedom.

Critics have rightfully condemned these measures as authoritarian, equating the administration’s stance on immigration with a broader attack on civil liberties. The approach not only undermines the rights of non-citizen students but also risks expanding executive power to deport individuals based on their political beliefs. This troubling trend echoes calls from various rights advocates who fear that such policies could lead to increased surveillance and punitive actions against activists.

In a recent legal battle, a judge blocked federal agents from detaining Yunseo Chung, a Columbia University student involved in pro-Palestinian protests, affirming that immigration enforcement cannot be weaponized against political dissenters. Mahmoud Khalil, a fellow protest organizer, has also challenged the government’s authority to revoke green cards, highlighting the chilling effects of these tactics on free expression on campuses.

The Trump administration is poised to leverage the financial pressures faced by colleges reliant on foreign student tuition as a means to enforce compliance. Institutions that fail to distance themselves adequately from pro-Palestinian sentiments might face dire consequences, including the loss of federal funding and the ability to accept foreign students. This chilling strategy exemplifies the administration’s dangerous blend of immigration policy and political agenda aimed at quelling dissent and targeting marginalized voices in academia.

(h/t: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-cancel-student-visa-college-hamas-gaza-b2722813.html)

Trump Administration’s Visa Revocation Targets Foreign Students for Political Beliefs

In a shocking revelation, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed that over 300 foreign students have had their visas revoked under the Trump administration, highlighting the administration’s aggressive stance on immigration. This figure, which Rubio suggested may even rise, underscores a pattern of repression aimed at individuals deemed undesirable due to their political affiliations, particularly those expressing pro-Palestinian sentiments.

Rubio openly stated during a press conference in Guyana that the administration routinely revokes the visas of foreign students, referring to them as “lunatics,” and has expressed the wish that the number would increase as they target more individuals. This remark reveals a narrative of extremism pushed by the Trump administration, which is undermining the fundamental values of freedom and academic exchange.

Further exacerbating the situation, the administration is not just targeting students but is also reportedly looking to impose restrictions on colleges with significant numbers of “pro-Hamas” foreign students, potentially barring these institutions from admitting any international students in the future. This is an overt attack on academic institutions and an effort to stifle dissent against Trump’s policies, branding legitimate political expression as akin to terrorism.

The recent actions have drawn scrutiny, especially from institutions like Columbia University, Tufts, and the University of Alabama, where several high-profile cases of visa revocation have occurred. Rubio’s comments reflect the Trump administration’s broader approach, characterized by fearmongering and systemic discrimination, targeting individuals based solely on their political expressions.

This crackdown goes hand in hand with a wider assault on civil liberties and immigration rights, showcasing the Trump administration’s authoritarian tendencies. By stripping students of their ability to study in the U.S. due to their beliefs, this administration is effectively dismantling the ideals of democracy and justice that the United States claims to uphold, revealing its true, oppressive nature.

Trump Cuts $20 Million in Domestic Terror Prevention Funding Ignoring Rising Violence

President Donald Trump has eliminated crucial funding for domestic terror prevention efforts, halting nearly $20 million allocated to a national database tracking incidents of domestic terrorism, hate crimes, and school shootings. This decision, part of a broader cut to 24 violence prevention projects, has raised serious concerns among experts regarding public safety amid rising violence in the country.

According to records obtained by The Washington Post, the decision carries significant implications for safety as the database, managed by the University of Maryland’s START consortium, was crucial in cataloging nearly three violent events per day. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) justified these cuts by claiming the projects no longer align with Department priorities without providing a clear rationale for the change.

This cancellation occurs during a time when data indicates a 25% surge in incidents of terrorism and targeted violence compared to the previous year. Authorities, such as Amy Cooter, Deputy Director at the Institute for Countering Digital Extremism, express alarm that these cuts will hinder the fight against domestic extremism, compromising efforts to monitor emerging threats and trends.

The programs affected include critical research designed to prevent school shootings and assess strategies for redirecting individuals from extremist ideologies. Experts involved are questioning the legality of shutting down these projects mid-operation, emphasizing that this abrupt termination undermines both financial investments and our ability to develop effective countermeasures against violence.

Despite these setbacks, researchers like Michael Jensen are committed to pushing back and appealing the decisions made. The overall impact of Trump’s actions is clear: a blatant disregard for evidence-based policies that could save lives in favor of aligning with a more authoritarian, reckless approach to governance, eroding efforts to protect American communities from violence.

(h/t: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/03/25/domestic-extremism-database-trump-cuts/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1psa82aqdgAWDzQiAB3JwUSW5R0RNM0Go6ThilrjzoyHo1jtvvcYr7WW8_aem_BABO1J2XqA6yQThBwi6ryA)

Republican Strategy Targets Federal Courts as GOP Pushes Back Against Judiciary

House Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested Congress may consider eliminating some federal courts, a drastic measure reflecting ongoing Republican hostility towards the judiciary that has ruled against former President Donald Trump. This remarks come as pressure mounts from the GOP’s right wing, highlighting the party’s increasingly aggressive approach to counter judicial decisions that hinder Trump’s policies, particularly those aimed at deporting migrants.

During a press conference, Johnson emphasized Congress’s authority over federal courts, claiming, “We can eliminate an entire district court,” and underscoring the power of Congress to influence court operations. He articulated these ideas in a context that suggests a willingness to act against the judiciary in response to perceived overreach, particularly in rulings that have halted Trump’s controversial immigration initiatives.

The Republican strategy includes not only the threat of eliminating courts but also the potential defunding of judiciary branches. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan is expected to hold hearings targeting judges like U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ruled against the Trump administration’s asylum policies. Jordan’s remarks about “legislative remedies” suggest that funding negotiations could become contentious as Republicans attempt to assert their influence over judicial decisions.

Despite Johnson’s bold statements, significant hurdles remain. The GOP would need a concerted effort from its ranks to strip funding from courts, a move likely to encounter resistance even within its own party. Senate Republicans face particularly stiff opposition, as they would need bipartisan support to overcome filibuster challenges, raising questions about the feasibility of such drastic actions.

In response to internal party dynamics, Johnson appears to be walking a fine line, signaling an intent to push back against unfavorable judicial rulings without fully alienating moderates in Congress. Upcoming votes, including a bill aimed at restricting district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, showcase the balancing act as Republicans navigate their legislative agenda while confronting the judiciary’s independence.

(h/t: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-mike-johnson-floats-eliminating-federal-courts-rcna197986)

Unjust Deportations of Venezuelans Under Trump’s Immigration Policies Expose Flawed Criminal Labeling

Under the Trump administration’s harsh immigration policies, Venezuelans with tattoos have been labeled as gang members, leading to unjust deportations. Franco José Caraballo Tiapa, a 26-year-old Venezuelan, was among those sent to El Salvador, where officials labeled him as a member of the Tren de Aragua gang based solely on his body art. His tattoos are personal tributes to family and signify nothing more than his love for art, yet immigration authorities distorted their meanings to justify his deportation.

Caraballo’s case reflects a broader trend of targeting Venezuelan asylum seekers unjustly identified as criminals. The official documentation from the Department of Homeland Security fails to substantiate claims of gang affiliation, pointing instead to his tattoos—none of which directly connect him to any criminal organization, as confirmed by experts familiar with Venezuelan gangs.

Another example is Daniel Alberto Lozano Camargo, whose tattoos commemorate family and significant life events. After being apprehended on dubious grounds, he was similarly deported despite having no criminal history of any kind. His partner and family have spoken out, describing the miscarriage of justice and the inhuman conditions he now faces in a Salvadoran prison.

The narrative pushed by the Trump administration paints these men as “heinous monsters,” ignoring their backgrounds as victims fleeing a failed state. Despite many having no criminal records, immigration officials insist on labeling them as threats, reflecting a blatant disregard for human rights and an abuse of power under the guise of national security.

As the plight of these Venezuelans underscores, Trump’s tactics normalize the targeting of individuals based on superficial traits, linking them to gang violence without evidence. This not only perpetuates fear and stigma but also serves as a worrying indication of the current administration’s authoritarian impulses, sidestepping justice in favor of political expediency.

(h/t: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/20/deported-because-of-his-tattoos-has-the-us-targeted-venezuelans-for-their-body-art)

Trump’s Refusal on Deportation Flights Sparks Constitutional Crisis

Donald Trump’s administration is on the brink of a constitutional crisis as it refuses to respond to a federal judge’s inquiries about deportation flights to El Salvador. The flights, carried out under Trump’s use of the outdated Alien Enemies Act, have come under scrutiny for potentially violating court orders. Judge James Boasberg requested specific details regarding these deportation flights, including departure and arrival times, to determine if the Trump administration willfully ignored judicial authority.

In a night filing, Trump administration officials invoked “state secrets privilege,” a controversial claim used to block court evidence citing national security concerns. Their assertion not only undermines the judiciary’s role but also protects Trump’s increasingly authoritarian practices. The administration’s refusal to comply with the judge’s requests raises alarms among legal experts, indicating a dangerous escalation of tensions between Trump and the judicial system.

The administration, backed by top officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, maintains that deportations are necessary to shield the nation from, what they term, “designated terrorists” from Venezuela. However, records reveal that many individuals deported lacked criminal histories, contradicting claims of their association with the violent gang Tren de Aragua. This contradiction highlights the unjust application of immigration laws under Trump’s presidency, aimed at instilling fear rather than protecting public safety.

Critics, including family members of those deported, argue that many of the detained individuals are innocent and have no ties to the alleged gang affiliations cited by ICE. The hasty deportations have denied individuals their rights to due process, with some facing imminent asylum hearings. Trump’s border officials defend these actions with vague assurances of thorough investigations, despite lacking transparency and due diligence.

As the appeals process unfolds, Judge Patricia Millett poignantly reminded the court that even German nationals accused under the Alien Enemies Act during World War II were afforded the opportunity to contest their confinement. This stark comparison emphasizes the erosion of civil liberties under Trump, whose administration operates with little regard for lawful immigration practices or the fundamental rights of individuals. The trajectory of these actions serves as a reminder of Trump’s commitment to authoritarian governance, further eroding the democratic foundations of the United States.

(h/t: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-state-secrets-alien-enemies-act-b2721243.html)

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 121