thenation--2020-07-17--Donald Trump’s Niece Dishes the Dirt

Donald Trump’s Niece Dishes the Dirt

The title of Mary Trump ’ s tell-all book about her family , Too Much and Never Enough , expresses my feelings perfectly .
I ’ ve read way too much about her uncle Donald and his awful relatives , to say nothing of his wives and girlfriends , but somehow it ’ s never enough .
I keep thinking I ’ m finally going to understand him as a thinking , feeling human being , but I never do .
Or is it that I only pretend to want understanding , when what I really want is just more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both in this well-written tell-all by Mary Trump , daughter of Donald ’ s older brother , Fred .
A psychologist with a PhD , she offers a portrait of family dysfunction that rings grimly true : Fred , the cruel , egotistical , tyrannical father , aided by his wife , the distant , sometimes sickly , and probably very miserable Mary Anne , destroyed in his five children much ( or in Donald ’ s case , all ) of their capacity for empathy , curiosity , kindness , or independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mattered , but only Donald managed to get a smattering of it .
He managed it by becoming a flashier version of his Dad , whose depredations as a builder and landlord in Brooklyn and Queens were so notorious that one of his tenants , Woody Guthrie , wrote a song about him .
Mary Trump may be out for revenge , but who wouldn ’ t be ?
She blames the “ sociopathy ” of Fred Sr. for destroying her father , Fred Jr .
The oldest son was a happy-go-lucky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the family business and made a bid for freedom by trying to become an airline pilot , before being claimed by the alcoholism that killed him at only 42 .
Young Fred ’ s downward slide is chilling : He was all but ignored by his parents , who had grudgingly taken him in—at one point they made him sleep on a cot in the attic of their enormous mansion—but failed to get him the high-quality medical care to which they had ready access as major hospital donors .
His siblings abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone , while Donald and his sister Elizabeth went to the movies .
Years before , Fred Sr. essentially arranged for Mary ’ s mother to be massively cheated in her divorce settlement , leaving her and her children—Fred ’ s grandchildren !
—trapped in a drafty , rundown apartment in one of his Queens developments .
To cap it off , Fred Sr. cut Mary and her brother out of his will , and her aunts and uncles eventually forced her and her brother to accept a comparatively modest settlement .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or two about the family cutting off their health insurance when her brother ’ s baby son was desperately sick . )
Years later , Mary took many boxes of legal paper to The New York Times , which in 2018—finally !
—published a long , damning investigation of the Trump family ’ s fraudulent tax dodging .
Donald Trump ’ s Tax Maneuvers Are Typical for His Class There ’ s a lot of psychiatric talk here about emotional child abuse and family dysfunction .
In Mary Trump ’ s view , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boy.
” There are lessons , too : For example , if the only reason you want kids is to perpetuate your empire , do the world a favor and stay childless .
Probably some version of Mary ’ s diagnosis is correct—something , after all , makes monsters out of sweet little babies .
But if you just want to hate the president , there ’ s no shortage of fresh material .
His older sister , Maryanne , did his homework for him , and he paid someone to take his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave Mary and her mother regifted items for Christmas , including a handbag with a used Kleenex inside and a food basket with a missing tin ( could it have been caviar ? )
.
He reportedly helped Maryanne , a now-retired federal judge , get a position on the federal bench by summoning help from Roy Cohn .
Fred Sr. floated one of Donald ’ s failing Atlantic City casinos by buying millions of dollars ’ worth of chips and not gambling with them .
There has to be some kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Donald ’ s treatment of his sister-in-law .
The book recounts his saying that it might have been better to cut Mary ’ s mother Linda off from the relatively modest family support she got after the divorce and make her “ stand on her own two feet.
” This is from a man whose family fortune was based on funding from government housing programs , plus millions in tax finagling , and whose entire career was bankrolled by his father .
Over the course of the book , Mary Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He is “ completely unqualified , ” “ crass , ” “ irresponsible , ” “ despicable.
” He is a “ narcissist , ” afflicted with what might be “ antisocial personality disorder ” or “ dependent personality disorder.
” He is perpetually “ lying , spinning , and obfuscating , ” telling the “ lies , misrepresentations , and fabrications that are the sum total of who my uncle is.
” He acts with both “ cruelty ” and “ possibly criminal negligence.
” He “ understands nothing about history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or anything else , really ) .
” And that ’ s just the first 15 pages .
His rise to the highest office in the land she blames on the media , which bought the myth of him as a brash , can-do self-made man and sexual dynamo ; the banks , which funded his dubious ventures ; and his siblings , none of whom warned the public what a disaster he would be as president .
Maryanne , who as a respected public figure Mary Trump thinks might have made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , not only remained silent ( ‘ she had her own secrets to keep ” ) but voted for him out of “ family loyalty.
” Mary Trump , who supported Hillary in 2016 , worries about the upcoming election .
“ A large minority of people still confuse his arrogance for strength , his false bravado for accomplishment , and his superficial interest in them for charisma.
” This is true .
Amazingly , in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic Trump has botched so completely , with unemployment reaching highs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the specter of mass evictions on the horizon , Trump ’ s support hovers around 40 percent .
That may not be enough to win the election , even with the disenfranchisement of many likely Biden supporters , and the wild card that is our disastrous Electoral College system .
But when the election is over , we will still have to face the fact that four in 10 Americans took his side .
Will Mary Trump succeed in changing minds where so many others have failed ?
I wish .

This article appears in the August 10/17, 2020 issue.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
The title of Mary Trump’s tell-all book about her family, Too Much and Never Enough, expresses my feelings perfectly. I’ve read way too much about her uncle Donald and his awful relatives, to say nothing of his wives and girlfriends, but somehow it’s never enough. I keep thinking I’m finally going to understand him as a thinking, feeling human being, but I never do. Or is it that I only pretend to want understanding, when what I really want is just more dirt?
There’s plenty of both in this well-written tell-all by Mary Trump, daughter of Donald’s older brother, Fred. A psychologist with a PhD, she offers a portrait of family dysfunction that rings grimly true: Fred, the cruel, egotistical, tyrannical father, aided by his wife, the distant, sometimes sickly, and probably very miserable Mary Anne, destroyed in his five children much (or in Donald’s case, all) of their capacity for empathy, curiosity, kindness, or independent action. Winning paternal approval was all that mattered, but only Donald managed to get a smattering of it. He managed it by becoming a flashier version of his Dad, whose depredations as a builder and landlord in Brooklyn and Queens were so notorious that one of his tenants, Woody Guthrie, wrote a song about him.
Mary Trump may be out for revenge, but who wouldn’t be? She blames the “sociopathy” of Fred Sr. for destroying her father, Fred Jr. The oldest son was a happy-go-lucky guy who wasn’t cut out for the family business and made a bid for freedom by trying to become an airline pilot, before being claimed by the alcoholism that killed him at only 42. Young Fred’s downward slide is chilling: He was all but ignored by his parents, who had grudgingly taken him in—at one point they made him sleep on a cot in the attic of their enormous mansion—but failed to get him the high-quality medical care to which they had ready access as major hospital donors. His siblings abandoned him as well, and he died alone, while Donald and his sister Elizabeth went to the movies.
Years before, Fred Sr. essentially arranged for Mary’s mother to be massively cheated in her divorce settlement, leaving her and her children—Fred’s grandchildren!—trapped in a drafty, rundown apartment in one of his Queens developments. To cap it off, Fred Sr. cut Mary and her brother out of his will, and her aunts and uncles eventually forced her and her brother to accept a comparatively modest settlement. (You may remember a stray news item or two about the family cutting off their health insurance when her brother’s baby son was desperately sick.) Years later, Mary took many boxes of legal paper to The New York Times, which in 2018—finally!—published a long, damning investigation of the Trump family’s fraudulent tax dodging. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann ill-gotten gains Donald Trump’s Tax Maneuvers Are Typical for His Class Bryce Covert
There’s a lot of psychiatric talk here about emotional child abuse and family dysfunction. In Mary Trump’s view, Donald is still a “terrified little boy.” There are lessons, too: For example, if the only reason you want kids is to perpetuate your empire, do the world a favor and stay childless. Probably some version of Mary’s diagnosis is correct—something, after all, makes monsters out of sweet little babies. But if you just want to hate the president, there’s no shortage of fresh material. His older sister, Maryanne, did his homework for him, and he paid someone to take his SATs. He and Ivana were cheapskates—they gave Mary and her mother regifted items for Christmas, including a handbag with a used Kleenex inside and a food basket with a missing tin (could it have been caviar?). He reportedly helped Maryanne, a now-retired federal judge, get a position on the federal bench by summoning help from Roy Cohn. Fred Sr. floated one of Donald’s failing Atlantic City casinos by buying millions of dollars’ worth of chips and not gambling with them. There has to be some kind of Nobel Prize in hypocrisy, though, for Donald’s treatment of his sister-in-law. The book recounts his saying that it might have been better to cut Mary’s mother Linda off from the relatively modest family support she got after the divorce and make her “stand on her own two feet.” This is from a man whose family fortune was based on funding from government housing programs, plus millions in tax finagling, and whose entire career was bankrolled by his father.
Over the course of the book, Mary Trump has many ways of describing her uncle. He is “completely unqualified,” “crass,” “irresponsible,” “despicable.” He is a “narcissist,” afflicted with what might be “antisocial personality disorder” or “dependent personality disorder.” He is perpetually “lying, spinning, and obfuscating,” telling the “lies, misrepresentations, and fabrications that are the sum total of who my uncle is.” He acts with both “cruelty” and “possibly criminal negligence.” He “understands nothing about history, constitutional principles, geopolitics, diplomacy (or anything else, really).” And that’s just the first 15 pages.
His rise to the highest office in the land she blames on the media, which bought the myth of him as a brash, can-do self-made man and sexual dynamo; the banks, which funded his dubious ventures; and his siblings, none of whom warned the public what a disaster he would be as president. Maryanne, who as a respected public figure Mary Trump thinks might have made a difference had she spoken up during the campaign, not only remained silent (“she had her own secrets to keep”) but voted for him out of “family loyalty.”
Mary Trump, who supported Hillary in 2016, worries about the upcoming election. “A large minority of people still confuse his arrogance for strength, his false bravado for accomplishment, and his superficial interest in them for charisma.” This is true. Amazingly, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic Trump has botched so completely, with unemployment reaching highs not seen since the Great Depression, and the specter of mass evictions on the horizon, Trump’s support hovers around 40 percent. That may not be enough to win the election, even with the disenfranchisement of many likely Biden supporters and the wild card that is our disastrous Electoral College system. But when the election is over, we will still have to face the fact that four in 10 Americans took his side.
Will Mary Trump succeed in changing minds where so many others have failed? I wish.


thenation--2020-07-17--With Fear and Favor: The Russophobia of ‘The New York Times’

“ Without fear or favor.
” That ’ s one of the hallowed mottos of The New York Times , first enshrined by its modern founder , Adolph Ochs , more than a century ago .
But today a more fitting motto would be “ With fear and favor.
” In recent years the Times has abandoned its own high standards of journalistic objectivity and committed itself to relentless , hyper-partisan demonization of Russia as a deadly threat to America .
The sensational story that Russia paid bounties for the killing of American soldiers in Afghanistan is just the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on anonymous intelligence officials ’ statements about interrogations of captured Taliban militants or criminals in Afghanistan .
The National Security Agency strongly dissented from the reported intelligence assessment .
The Pentagon , which used a route across Russia to supply US forces in Afghanistan , said that it “ has no corroborating evidence ” to validate the allegations .
The Taliban indignantly denied the claims .
George Beebe , former head of Russia analysis at the CIA , and constitutional lawyer David Rivkin argued that the sources for the story were not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , which oversaw the interrogations , had a clear motive : It “ desperately wants the U.S. military to remain in Afghanistan.
” By July 7 , even the Times belatedly acknowledged that “ there ’ s a lot missing from the reports that Russia paid for attacks on American and other coalition forces in Afghanistan.
” It then urged that “ emotions and politics be kept at bay , ” yet it was the Times itself that had inflamed emotions and stoked partisan controversy .
Maybe one day the dubious allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anonymous intelligence officials must not be allowed to drive public discussion of US policy regarding Russia by leaking statements made by drug smugglers or Islamists under interrogation .
We should remember how distorted intelligence has misled us before .
False intelligence about weapons of mass destruction paved the way to the catastrophic war in Iraq in 2003 .
False claims about a Soviet combat brigade in Cuba torpedoed ratification of the SALT II Treaty in 1979 .
False reports of North Vietnamese attacks on US warships in the Tonkin Gulf led Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check for waging the disastrous war in Vietnam .
The New York Times infamously assisted the George W. Bush administration ’ s dishonest selling of the war in Iraq , initially backed demands for the dismantling of the supposed Soviet combat brigade in Cuba , and supported Johnson ’ s retaliation against the alleged North Vietnamese attacks .
Disregarding all that past experience , journalists , politicians , and foreign policy experts have simply assumed that the claims of Russian bounties are true and called for action .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi jumped to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humiliation of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan more than 30 years ago , Russia was “ taking it out on us , our troops.
” Senator Ben Sasse demanded a plan for putting Russian military intelligence officers “ in body bags.
” On the op-ed page of the Times , former national security adviser Susan Rice declared that President Donald Trump ’ s failure to order a response to “ Russian efforts to slaughter American troops in cold blood ” confirmed that the president was “ actively advancing our arch adversary ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cumulative impact of a long campaign by American media .
The demonization of Russia is driven by the desire to deflect attention from misconduct by the United States , to affirm American moral superiority in contrast to Russian depravity , and to smear domestic political opponents by associating them with Russia .
The campaign began in the first years of the century , when American journalists attributed the brutality of the Russian war against rebels in Chechnya to the fundamental ethos of its military and the moral callousness of Vladimir Putin ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iraq were blamed on mistakes and “ bad apples ” ) .
It expanded after Putin denounced the “ almost uncontained hyper-use of force ” by the United States during a speech in Munich in 2007 .
It escalated further in 2008 , after Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia , killing Russian peacekeepers , and Russia ’ s counterattack was depicted by the American press as an unprovoked “ invasion.
” Putin , the Times declared , was “ the dark hand behind Russia ’ s aggression.
” Since the election of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relentless , with the Times persistently promoting stories that the Trump team colluded with Putin in a sinister plot to defeat Hillary Clinton .
The Times led readers to expect that special prosecutor Robert Mueller would establish the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt .
When Mueller ’ s long-awaited report actually did not confirm the collusion story , the Times was left “ a little tiny bit flat footed , ” as Executive Editor Dean Baquet put it in a town-hall meeting with Times staff published by Slate in August 2019 .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin ’ s puppet , disregarding the numerous actions by Trump contrary to Russia ’ s interests , including attacking Russia ’ s ally Syria with cruise missiles in April 2017 , sending Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine , trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela ( a Russian client ) , withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , resisting Russian appeals to extend the New START Treaty , and abrogating the agreement to constrain Iran ’ s nuclear program ( which Russia helped the Obama administration to achieve ) .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ordered “ a covert cyberattack against Russia ’ s Internet Research Agency ” in 2018 .
While the Trump administration ’ s imposition of new economic sanctions on Russia stemmed from pressure from Congress , the other actions are a result of Trump ’ s bellicose , unilateralist , “ America first ” nationalism .
Trump is an utterly selfish , impulsive , uncontrollable blowhard and bully .
He is nobody ’ s puppet .
This year , as the coronavirus pandemic has afflicted the United States much more than any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and disparaged Putin ’ s handling of the crisis in Russia ( where there have been far fewer coronavirus infections and deaths ) .
In April the Times even published a lengthy article , “ Putin ’ s Long War Against American Science , ” that blamed the outbreak in the United States at least in part on Putin .
The article presented no evidence to support its insinuation and even acknowledged that Putin has actually “ been a staunch proponent of vaccines ” in Russia .
Yet it nonetheless charged that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a decade , thereby encouraging “ the spread of deadly illnesses.
” America Is Fracturing—and So Is ‘ The New York Times ’ With the presidential election approaching , partisan politics have played even more important roles in distorted stories concerning Russia .
The Times has appeared to favor Biden not only against Trump but also against his earlier Democratic rival Bernie Sanders .
In March , when Sanders still seemed likely to win the Democratic presidential nomination , the Times published an outrageous story that claimed Sanders had been a vodka-downing dupe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communist country to develop a sister-city relationship between Burlington , Vt. , and Yaroslavl .
The breathless Times correspondent who ballyhooed the story neglected to mention that at the exact same time that Sanders was in Russia , President Ronald Reagan , who strongly supported citizen exchanges , was in Moscow , strolling on Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev and declaring that because of Gorbachev ’ s dramatic reforms , he no longer considered the Soviet Union an “ evil empire.
” By printing such smears , the Times and other papers not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the liberal media in the United States .
They also shred the reputation of the American press among Russian liberals and journalists who earlier admired its independence and integrity .
As Nadezhda Azhgikhina , a veteran Russian journalist and executive director of PEN Moscow , has explained , “ Russiagate killed the beautiful dream of the perfection of the US system of government , respect for the law , and the excellence of the US press.
” Although readers of the Times rarely learn about how Dean Baquet and current publisher Arthur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s coverage of Russia , the New York Times Company Records at the New York Public Library allow us to see how an earlier publisher shaped the anti-Russian line of the Times .
The man who made it America ’ s premier newspaper in the middle of the 20th century , publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger , explained to Editorial Page Editor Charles Merz in April 1958 that “ propaganda…is not necessarily untrue.… It is a method of emphasis calling attention to that which it is desired to have known.
” Sulzberger encouraged Merz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and foment “ distrust of the Soviet Union ” even when it had not done anything recently that warranted indictment .
Merz , who sometimes resisted Sulzberger ’ s desires to pound away at Russia , had a unique vantage .
In 1920 , he and Walter Lippmann had published a detailed study of the wildly inaccurate and ideologically distorted coverage of Russia by the Times during the Russian Civil War .
The Times , Merz and Lippmann found , repeatedly published as news what the vehemently anti-communist publisher and editors wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Trotsky ; the imprisonment of Lenin ; the overthrow of the Soviet regime .
“ The Russian policy of the editors of the Times , ” Lippmann and Merz concluded , “ profoundly and crassly influenced their news columns.
” The Times then veered in the opposite direction , posting the eccentric British correspondent Walter Duranty to Moscow , where he would become notorious as “ Stalin ’ s apologist.
” Yet Duranty ’ s tenure as the chief Times reporter in the Soviet Union ended soon after Arthur Hays Sulzberger became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War II , it was under Sulzberger that the Times first cultivated a close relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency .
In exchange for special briefings of its correspondents by Allen Dulles and others at the CIA , the Times helped to hide and justify covert interventions in Iran , Guatemala , Indonesia , Cuba , and elsewhere that had disastrous consequences .
As the young historian David P. Hadley has shown , the CIA did not control the Times ; instead , there was a “ friendly confluence ” of interests ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
In some respects , however , The New York Times in the era of Arthur Hays Sulzberger presents a favorable contrast to the Times today .
That Sulzberger at least felt obliged to pay lip service to his father-in-law ’ s injunction “ to give all the news without fear or favor.
” Moreover , Sulzberger allowed his correspondents in the Soviet Union wide discretion and expected them to strive for objectivity .
Perhaps the best of them , Harrison Salisbury , who greatly appreciated the leeway , titled his history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Favor ( 1980 ) .
During the Cold War decades that followed , Times reporters sometimes propagated stereotypes about drab , conformist , submissive Russians .
Yet correspondents like Hedrick Smith and David Shipler also worked hard to develop sympathetic understanding of the Russian people , who , they showed , were not robots or anti-American fanatics .
Instead of depicting the Soviet Union as a totalitarian menace to America , they sought to help overcome the dangerous hostility between the two superpowers .
At the peak of tension in the early 1980s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems in the relationship .
As he wrote in Russia : Broken Idols , Solemn Dreams ( 1983 ) , Americans “ hate the Russians for giving the lie to our innermost assumptions about mankind ” —that freedom is man ’ s natural state and that all people must yearn to be like us .
Shipler ’ s insight was unusual : As historian Dina Fainberg shows in her forthcoming book Cold War Correspondents , most American journalists were preoccupied with affirming the superiority of the United States and casting the Soviet Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Cold War , frustration with the failure to remake Russia in America ’ s image and scapegoating of Russian resistance to US policies has sparked much of the negative reporting by the Times and other papers , as Stephen Cohen ’ s Failed Crusade ( 2000 ) and Andrei Tsygankov ’ s The Dark Double ( 2019 ) demonstrate .
Still , the honorable and valuable work of journalists like Shipler , Smith , and Salisbury , which contrasts so sharply with depictions of Russia in the Times today , suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the most influential paper in America .
With more than half of the Times ’ revenue now coming from subscriptions , regular readers may be in a position to demand more responsible coverage of Russia .
One can also hope that reporters and editors at the Times will be more mindful of the warning from Lippmann and Merz in 1920 that “ statements of fact emanating from governments… can not be taken as judgments of fact by an independent press ” —a warning that is also applicable to leaks by intelligence officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ulterior motives .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
“Without fear or favor.” That’s one of the hallowed mottos of The New York Times, first enshrined by its modern founder, Adolph Ochs, more than a century ago. But today a more fitting motto would be “With fear and favor.” In recent years the Times has abandoned its own high standards of journalistic objectivity and committed itself to relentless, hyper-partisan demonization of Russia as a deadly threat to America.
The sensational story that Russia paid bounties for the killing of American soldiers in Afghanistan is just the most recent example. The Times articles were based on anonymous intelligence officials’ statements about interrogations of captured Taliban militants or criminals in Afghanistan. The National Security Agency strongly dissented from the reported intelligence assessment. The Pentagon, which used a route across Russia to supply US forces in Afghanistan, said that it “has no corroborating evidence” to validate the allegations. The Taliban indignantly denied the claims. George Beebe, former head of Russia analysis at the CIA, and constitutional lawyer David Rivkin argued that the sources for the story were not very credible, particularly because the Afghan government, which oversaw the interrogations, had a clear motive: It “desperately wants the U.S. military to remain in Afghanistan.” By July 7, even the Times belatedly acknowledged that “there’s a lot missing from the reports that Russia paid for attacks on American and other coalition forces in Afghanistan.” It then urged that “emotions and politics be kept at bay,” yet it was the Times itself that had inflamed emotions and stoked partisan controversy.
Maybe one day the dubious allegations will be proven true. Until then, anonymous intelligence officials must not be allowed to drive public discussion of US policy regarding Russia by leaking statements made by drug smugglers or Islamists under interrogation. We should remember how distorted intelligence has misled us before. False intelligence about weapons of mass destruction paved the way to the catastrophic war in Iraq in 2003. False claims about a Soviet combat brigade in Cuba torpedoed ratification of the SALT II Treaty in 1979. False reports of North Vietnamese attacks on US warships in the Tonkin Gulf led Congress to give President Lyndon Johnson a blank check for waging the disastrous war in Vietnam. The New York Times infamously assisted the George W. Bush administration’s dishonest selling of the war in Iraq, initially backed demands for the dismantling of the supposed Soviet combat brigade in Cuba, and supported Johnson’s retaliation against the alleged North Vietnamese attacks. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Disregarding all that past experience, journalists, politicians, and foreign policy experts have simply assumed that the claims of Russian bounties are true and called for action. Speaker Nancy Pelosi jumped to the conclusion that in revenge for the humiliation of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan more than 30 years ago, Russia was “taking it out on us, our troops.” Senator Ben Sasse demanded a plan for putting Russian military intelligence officers “in body bags.” On the op-ed page of the Times, former national security adviser Susan Rice declared that President Donald Trump’s failure to order a response to “Russian efforts to slaughter American troops in cold blood” confirmed that the president was “actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.”
Such reckless jingoism reflects the cumulative impact of a long campaign by American media. The demonization of Russia is driven by the desire to deflect attention from misconduct by the United States, to affirm American moral superiority in contrast to Russian depravity, and to smear domestic political opponents by associating them with Russia.
The campaign began in the first years of the century, when American journalists attributed the brutality of the Russian war against rebels in Chechnya to the fundamental ethos of its military and the moral callousness of Vladimir Putin (while in the same years American atrocities in Iraq were blamed on mistakes and “bad apples”). It expanded after Putin denounced the “almost uncontained hyper-use of force” by the United States during a speech in Munich in 2007. It escalated further in 2008, after Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, killing Russian peacekeepers, and Russia’s counterattack was depicted by the American press as an unprovoked “invasion.” Putin, the Times declared, was “the dark hand behind Russia’s aggression.”
Since the election of 2016 the campaign has been even more relentless, with the Times persistently promoting stories that the Trump team colluded with Putin in a sinister plot to defeat Hillary Clinton. The Times led readers to expect that special prosecutor Robert Mueller would establish the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. When Mueller’s long-awaited report actually did not confirm the collusion story, the Times was left “a little tiny bit flat footed,” as Executive Editor Dean Baquet put it in a town-hall meeting with Times staff published by Slate in August 2019. Current Issue View our current issue
Yet the paper goes on portraying Trump as Putin’s puppet, disregarding the numerous actions by Trump contrary to Russia’s interests, including attacking Russia’s ally Syria with cruise missiles in April 2017, sending Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela (a Russian client), withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, resisting Russian appeals to extend the New START Treaty, and abrogating the agreement to constrain Iran’s nuclear program (which Russia helped the Obama administration to achieve). Just this week The Washington Post reported that Trump ordered “a covert cyberattack against Russia’s Internet Research Agency” in 2018. While the Trump administration’s imposition of new economic sanctions on Russia stemmed from pressure from Congress, the other actions are a result of Trump’s bellicose, unilateralist, “America first” nationalism. Trump is an utterly selfish, impulsive, uncontrollable blowhard and bully. He is nobody’s puppet.
This year, as the coronavirus pandemic has afflicted the United States much more than any other country, the Times has repeatedly mocked and disparaged Putin’s handling of the crisis in Russia (where there have been far fewer coronavirus infections and deaths). In April the Times even published a lengthy article, “Putin’s Long War Against American Science,” that blamed the outbreak in the United States at least in part on Putin. The article presented no evidence to support its insinuation and even acknowledged that Putin has actually “been a staunch proponent of vaccines” in Russia. Yet it nonetheless charged that he had spread health misinformation for more than a decade, thereby encouraging “the spread of deadly illnesses.” The Times America Is Fracturing—and So Is ‘The New York Times’ Jeet Heer
With the presidential election approaching, partisan politics have played even more important roles in distorted stories concerning Russia. The Times has appeared to favor Biden not only against Trump but also against his earlier Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. In March, when Sanders still seemed likely to win the Democratic presidential nomination, the Times published an outrageous story that claimed Sanders had been a vodka-downing dupe of Soviet propaganda when he visited the communist country to develop a sister-city relationship between Burlington, Vt., and Yaroslavl. The breathless Times correspondent who ballyhooed the story neglected to mention that at the exact same time that Sanders was in Russia, President Ronald Reagan, who strongly supported citizen exchanges, was in Moscow, strolling on Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev and declaring that because of Gorbachev’s dramatic reforms, he no longer considered the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”
By printing such smears, the Times and other papers not only exacerbate the political polarization and cynicism about the liberal media in the United States. They also shred the reputation of the American press among Russian liberals and journalists who earlier admired its independence and integrity. As Nadezhda Azhgikhina, a veteran Russian journalist and executive director of PEN Moscow, has explained, “Russiagate killed the beautiful dream of the perfection of the US system of government, respect for the law, and the excellence of the US press.”
Although readers of the Times rarely learn about how Dean Baquet and current publisher Arthur G. Sulzberger privately guide the paper’s coverage of Russia, the New York Times Company Records at the New York Public Library allow us to see how an earlier publisher shaped the anti-Russian line of the Times. The man who made it America’s premier newspaper in the middle of the 20th century, publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, explained to Editorial Page Editor Charles Merz in April 1958 that “propaganda…is not necessarily untrue.… It is a method of emphasis calling attention to that which it is desired to have known.” Sulzberger encouraged Merz to seize opportunities “to excoriate Russia” and foment “distrust of the Soviet Union” even when it had not done anything recently that warranted indictment.
Merz, who sometimes resisted Sulzberger’s desires to pound away at Russia, had a unique vantage. In 1920, he and Walter Lippmann had published a detailed study of the wildly inaccurate and ideologically distorted coverage of Russia by the Times during the Russian Civil War. The Times, Merz and Lippmann found, repeatedly published as news what the vehemently anti-communist publisher and editors wanted to see: the flight of Lenin and Trotsky; the imprisonment of Lenin; the overthrow of the Soviet regime. “The Russian policy of the editors of the Times,” Lippmann and Merz concluded, “profoundly and crassly influenced their news columns.”
The Times then veered in the opposite direction, posting the eccentric British correspondent Walter Duranty to Moscow, where he would become notorious as “Stalin’s apologist.” Yet Duranty’s tenure as the chief Times reporter in the Soviet Union ended soon after Arthur Hays Sulzberger became the publisher in 1935.
After World War II, it was under Sulzberger that the Times first cultivated a close relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency. In exchange for special briefings of its correspondents by Allen Dulles and others at the CIA, the Times helped to hide and justify covert interventions in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, and elsewhere that had disastrous consequences. As the young historian David P. Hadley has shown, the CIA did not control the Times; instead, there was a “friendly confluence” of interests (or, one might say, collusion).
In some respects, however, The New York Times in the era of Arthur Hays Sulzberger presents a favorable contrast to the Times today. That Sulzberger at least felt obliged to pay lip service to his father-in-law’s injunction “to give all the news without fear or favor.” Moreover, Sulzberger allowed his correspondents in the Soviet Union wide discretion and expected them to strive for objectivity. Perhaps the best of them, Harrison Salisbury, who greatly appreciated the leeway, titled his history of the Times, Without Fear or Favor (1980).
During the Cold War decades that followed, Times reporters sometimes propagated stereotypes about drab, conformist, submissive Russians. Yet correspondents like Hedrick Smith and David Shipler also worked hard to develop sympathetic understanding of the Russian people, who, they showed, were not robots or anti-American fanatics. Instead of depicting the Soviet Union as a totalitarian menace to America, they sought to help overcome the dangerous hostility between the two superpowers. At the peak of tension in the early 1980s Shipler recognized that Americans contributed to the problems in the relationship. As he wrote in Russia: Broken Idols, Solemn Dreams (1983), Americans “hate the Russians for giving the lie to our innermost assumptions about mankind”—that freedom is man’s natural state and that all people must yearn to be like us.
Shipler’s insight was unusual: As historian Dina Fainberg shows in her forthcoming book Cold War Correspondents, most American journalists were preoccupied with affirming the superiority of the United States and casting the Soviet Union as its Other. Since the end of the Cold War, frustration with the failure to remake Russia in America’s image and scapegoating of Russian resistance to US policies has sparked much of the negative reporting by the Times and other papers, as Stephen Cohen’s Failed Crusade (2000) and Andrei Tsygankov’s The Dark Double (2019) demonstrate.
Still, the honorable and valuable work of journalists like Shipler, Smith, and Salisbury, which contrasts so sharply with depictions of Russia in the Times today, suggests that Russophobia need not always be propagated by the most influential paper in America. With more than half of the Times’ revenue now coming from subscriptions, regular readers may be in a position to demand more responsible coverage of Russia. One can also hope that reporters and editors at the Times will be more mindful of the warning from Lippmann and Merz in 1920 that “statements of fact emanating from governments…cannot be taken as judgments of fact by an independent press”—a warning that is also applicable to leaks by intelligence officials who insist on anonymity and may have ulterior motives.


thenation--2020-07-17--Donald Trump Is Living Proof of Osama bin Laden’s Success

It ’ s July 2020 and I ’ m about to turn 76 , which , as far as I ’ m concerned , officially makes me an old man .
So put up with my aging , wandering brain here , since ( I swear ) I wasn ’ t going to start this piece with Donald J. Trump , no matter his latest wild claims or bizarre statements , increasingly white nationalist and pro-Confederate positions ( right down to the saving of the rebel Stars and Bars ) , not to speak of the Covid-19 slaughter of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then I read about his demand for a “ National Garden of American Heroes , ” described as “ a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live ” and , honestly , though this piece is officially about something else , I just can ’ t help myself .
I had to start there .
Yes , everyone undoubtedly understands why Gen. George Patton ( a Trump obsession ) is to be in that garden , not to speak—given the president ’ s reelection politics—of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antonin Scalia , and former president Ronald Reagan .
Still , my guess is that most of you won ’ t have the faintest idea why Davy Crockett is included .
I ’ m talking about the frontiersman and Indian killer who died at the Alamo .
Given my age , though , I get Trump on this one and it gave me a rare laugh in a distinctly grim moment .
That ’ s why I can ’ t resist explaining it , even though I guarantee you that the real subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s revenge .
After all , The Donald and I grew up in the 1950s in different parts of the same bustling city , New York .
We both had TVs , just then flooding into homes nationwide , and I guarantee you that we both were riveted by the same hit show , TV ’ s first miniseries , Walt Disney ’ s Davy Crockett , King of the Wild Frontier , starring the actor Fess Parker .
Its pop theme song swept the country .
( “ Born on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the land of the free… Kilt him a b ’ ar when he was only three… Davy , Davy Crockett , king of the wild frontier.
” ) The show also launched a kids ’ craze for coonskin caps .
( Who among us didn ’ t have , or at least yearn , for one ? )
So how could a statue of Fess Parker not be in the Garden of American Heroes ?
And since Donald Trump is himself the essence of a bad novel ( though he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just wonder : What about the Lone Ranger and Tonto , especially since there are no plans for Native Americans in his garden-to-be ?
They were a crew obviously put on Earth to be wiped out by white colonists , cowboys , and the cavalry in the kinds of Westerns both of us trooped to local movie theaters to see back then .
Or how about Hopalong Cassidy ( Hoppy ! )
, that other TV cowboy hero of our childhood ?
Doesn ’ t he deserve to ride in that garden next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Douglas MacArthur ?
After all , I know that Hoppy was real and this is how : When I was seven or eight , my father had a friend who worked for Pathé News and I rode in front of the tripod of his camera on the roof of that company ’ s station wagon in a Macy ’ s Day Parade in my hometown .
( I still have the photos . )
Somewhere along the route , Hoppy himself—I kid you not !
—rode by on his white horse Topper and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wagon and we were at about the same height , he shook my hand !
And here ’ s what makes Cassidy especially appropriate for The Donald ’ s garden landscape : In the 1950s , he was the only cowboy hero who dressed all in black right up to his hat ( normally , a sign of the bad guy ) and , in the process , created a kid ’ s craze for black shirts ( his version of a coonskin cap ) , breaking its past association with either Italian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the culture big time .
Tell me honestly , then , don ’ t you think a garden of “ heroes ” in the age of Trump should have a few black shirts and an increasingly Mussolini-ish look to it ?
So Donald Trump and I both lived through the same TV world in our childhoods and youth .
We also lived through 9/11 , still in the same city , although unlike him , I wasn ’ t practically a “ first responder ” at the site of those two downed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Muslims celebrating across the river in Jersey City ( as he claimed he did ) .
Still , of one thing I ’ m convinced : Donald Trump is Osama bin Laden ’ s revenge .
Of course , that was all so long ago .
The new century had barely begun .
I was only 57 and The Donald 55 when those two hijacked planes suddenly slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in our hometown , a third one plunged into the Pentagon in Washington , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House or the Capitol ) crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after its passengers fought back .
Ever since , all you have to do is write “ 9/11 ” and everyone knows ( or thinks they know ) what it stands for .
But on 9/11 , there was , of course , no 9/11 .
It was a breathtakingly unexpected event ( although , to be fair , the CIA had previously briefed President George W. Bush on Osama bin Laden ’ s desire to hijack commercial planes for possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that FBI agent in Phoenix who urged headquarters “ to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in American flight schools ” ) .
Still , the downing of those towers and part of the headquarters of the singularly victorious military of the ultimate superpower of the Cold War , the one already being called “ indispensable ” and “ exceptional ” in 2001 , was beyond shocking .
Admittedly , there ’ s history to be remembered here .
After all , it wasn ’ t actually that military or that Pentagon that downed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the American military fought the Soviets in major proxy wars on a planet where nuclear catastrophe was always just around the corner , it found itself remarkably stalemated in Korea and dismally on the losing side in Vietnam .
No , if you want to give credit where it ’ s due , offer it to the CIA and Washington ’ s Saudi allies , who invested staggering effort from 1979 to 1989 in funding , supporting , and training the Taliban ’ s predecessors , groups of Afghan Islamic extremists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their country .
Supporting them as well ( though , as far as is known , probably not actually funded by the United States ) was a rich young Saudi militant named , believe it or not , Osama bin Laden who , before that war even ended , had founded a group called “ the Base ” or Al Qaeda , and would , in 1996 , declare “ war ” on the United States .
Oh yes , and though it ’ s seldom mentioned now , when charges are flying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian funding of Taliban militants to kill at most a few Americans in Afghanistan , in those years the United States poured billions of dollars into… well , not to put it too subtly , empowering Islamic extremists to kill the soldiers of that other superpower by the thousands in… yes , Afghanistan .
How ’ s that for shocking ?
In 1989 , the defeated Red Army finally limped home from what the Soviet Union ’ s leader , Mikhail Gorbachev , had taken to calling “ the bleeding wound.
” Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the United States was left alone , officially victorious , on Planet Earth ( despite future fantasies of a horrific “ axis of evil ” to be faced ) , the first country in endless centuries of imperial rivalry to find itself so .
And what exactly did that triumphantly indispensable , exceptional superpower do but , a decade later , get dive-bombed by 19—just 19 !
—largely Saudi hijackers in the service of tiny Al Qaeda and that wizard of terror Osama bin Laden , whose urge was then to provoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muslim world and so create yet more Islamic extremists .
And did he succeed ?
You bet—and in a fashion even he undoubtedly hadn ’ t conceived of in his wildest dreams .
Think of 9/11 , in fact , as the greatest example of “ shock and awe ” in this century .
Here ’ s a feeling I still remember from the weeks after the 9/11 attacks when I saw where the administration of President George W. Bush was heading toward the invasion of Afghanistan and then , God save us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream media narrow its focus to this country as the most victimized yet dominating and exceptional place on Earth and Osama bin Laden as the ultimate evil on this planet ; when I watched the never-ending memorial ceremonies begin and what soon came to be called “ the war on terror ” be launched with up to 60 ( count ’ em : 60 ! )
countries in its gunsights , even if I didn ’ t yet know that , on 9/11 in the damaged Pentagon , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ Go Massive .
Sweep it all up .
Things related and not , ” with a future invasion of Saddam Hussein ’ s Iraq clearly in mind , though the Iraqi autocrat had no relation whatsoever to Al Qaeda ( something you wouldn ’ t have known from the top officials in that administration in those years ) —when , in short ( though I didn ’ t yet think of it that way ) , I watched my own country become a “ bleeding wound ” that has never stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Covid-19 moment , has turned into an American Garden of Blood .
Back in late September 2001 , despite having been deeply involved decades earlier in the nightmare of the Vietnam War ( and opposition to it ) , I could already sense war coming , and it occurred to me that this was going to be the worst period I had ever experienced .
Now that we ’ re in Donald Trump ’ s America , with hundreds of Americans dying daily of a disease that a reasonably responsible president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 3,000 deaths of 9/11 are beginning to look like a drop in the casualty bucket .
( By the beginning of April 2020 , Covid-19 deaths in New York City alone had already surpassed those of 9/11 by 1,000 . )
And I wasn ’ t wrong in that hunch about this being the worst period , was I ?
Mind you , it was just a gut feeling then , no more—even though it would soon enough lead , almost inexorably , to the creation of my website , TomDispatch , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be America ’ s never-ending wars of this century .
Let ’ s get one thing straight , though .
If , at that moment , you had told me that this country was going to launch a series of forever wars across what would turn out to be a significant part of the planet and fight them hopelessly for almost two decades or that , the more success proved absent in those same years , the more one administration after another would pour taxpayer dollars into the US military , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the national security state ; that what ’ s still known , with no accuracy whatsoever , as the “ defense budget ” would years ago have become larger than those of the next seven best-funded military powers on the planet combined and , by 2020 , the next 10 , and would still be rising ; that domestic investment , from infrastructure to pandemic preparedness , would be starved for money in those same years , and that just about no one would protest any of this in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America , I would have thought you a madman—or rather , the world ’ s best writer of dystopian fiction .
If you had told me that , in those very years , of the two great powers of this century , China and the United States—one rising , the other ever more clearly falling—the latter would lose approximately 7,000 military personnel ( and at least another 8,000 military contractors ) and many more wounded , not to speak of those who came home with PTSD or , under the pressure of repeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed suicide , while the former , as The New York Times reported recently in the wake of a bloody ( but not weaponized ) clash on China ’ s disputed Himalayan border with India , would have lost next to none , I wouldn ’ t have believed you .
( “ In four decades , ” as the Times wrote , “ the People ’ s Liberation Army had lost just three soldiers to fighting abroad—troops who were killed in United Nations peacekeeping operations in Mali and South Sudan in 2016.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , facing a devastating virus , the leader of one would largely suppress it—admittedly using the most authoritarian of methods—while , in his search for reelection , the leader of the other , officially still the greatest power on the planet , would ignore it , open the economy , churches , schools , and institutions of every sort and watch it run wild without a plan in sight ; if you had told me that fewer than 5,000 people would die in the first of those countries and more than 134,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other , leaving the American dead of 9/11 and the bloody wars of this century in the shade , and that it was all only getting worse , I wouldn ’ t have believed you .
Not for a second .
And if , above all , you had told me that , deep into those years of bleeding abroad and increasingly at home , a near majority of Americans would vote to ( as I wrote during election campaign 2016 ) send a suicide bomber into the White House , I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bin Laden had been killed by SEAL Team Six in Pakistan and buried in the briny deep in 2011 , Donald Trump was his living revenge , and that bin Laden had won twice—once thanks to those ludicrous , murderous forever wars across much of the Muslim world , and the second time thanks to the pandemic from hell and the president from the same place .
Imagine if , in 1991 when the Soviet Union imploded , I had told you that in 2020 , not quite three decades distant , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less literally , a document for a trip to nowhere .
Talk about a bleeding , or even hemorrhaging , wound !
In the years to come , I think it will be ever more obvious that Donald Trump was , in fact , proof of Osama bin Laden ’ s success , of the fact that 9/11 and those 19 hijackers were all that was needed to produce the world of his dreams and the wounds that went with it .
And if , by the way , you wondered why I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I could possibly create , the answer is simple enough : two decades into the 21st century , I think it should be obvious that Americans have been given an exceptionally , perhaps even indispensably long sentence without parole on a planet already heating to the boiling point , 94,000,000 miles from the sun .
No , this truly won ’ t be “ the American century , ” but I doubt it will be the Chinese one either .
By the time this crew is done , it may be nobody ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Osama !
This is your bleeding wound , too .

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
It’s July 2020 and I’m about to turn 76, which, as far as I’m concerned, officially makes me an old man. So put up with my aging, wandering brain here, since (I swear) I wasn’t going to start this piece with Donald J. Trump, no matter his latest wild claims or bizarre statements, increasingly white nationalist and pro-Confederate positions (right down to the saving of the rebel Stars and Bars), not to speak of the Covid-19 slaughter of Americans he’s helped facilitate. But then I read about his demand for a “National Garden of American Heroes,” described as “a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live” and, honestly, though this piece is officially about something else, I just can’t help myself. I had to start there.
Yes, everyone undoubtedly understands why Gen. George Patton (a Trump obsession) is to be in that garden, not to speak—given the president’s reelection politics—of evangelist Billy Graham, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and former president Ronald Reagan. Still, my guess is that most of you won’t have the faintest idea why Davy Crockett is included. I’m talking about the frontiersman and Indian killer who died at the Alamo. Given my age, though, I get Trump on this one and it gave me a rare laugh in a distinctly grim moment. That’s why I can’t resist explaining it, even though I guarantee you that the real subject of this piece is Osama bin Laden’s revenge.
After all, The Donald and I grew up in the 1950s in different parts of the same bustling city, New York. We both had TVs, just then flooding into homes nationwide, and I guarantee you that we both were riveted by the same hit show, TV’s first miniseries, Walt Disney’s Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier, starring the actor Fess Parker. Its pop theme song swept the country. (“Born on a mountain top in Tennessee, greenest state in the land of the free… Kilt him a b’ar when he was only three… Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier.”) The show also launched a kids’ craze for coonskin caps. (Who among us didn’t have, or at least yearn, for one?) So how could a statue of Fess Parker not be in the Garden of American Heroes?
And since Donald Trump is himself the essence of a bad novel (though he’s also become our reality), I just wonder: What about the Lone Ranger and Tonto, especially since there are no plans for Native Americans in his garden-to-be? They were a crew obviously put on Earth to be wiped out by white colonists, cowboys, and the cavalry in the kinds of Westerns both of us trooped to local movie theaters to see back then. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Or how about Hopalong Cassidy (Hoppy!), that other TV cowboy hero of our childhood? Doesn’t he deserve to ride in that garden next to another Trump military fixation, Gen. Douglas MacArthur? After all, I know that Hoppy was real and this is how: When I was seven or eight, my father had a friend who worked for Pathé News and I rode in front of the tripod of his camera on the roof of that company’s station wagon in a Macy’s Day Parade in my hometown. (I still have the photos.) Somewhere along the route, Hoppy himself—I kid you not!—rode by on his white horse Topper and, since I was atop that station wagon and we were at about the same height, he shook my hand!
And here’s what makes Cassidy especially appropriate for The Donald’s garden landscape: In the 1950s, he was the only cowboy hero who dressed all in black right up to his hat (normally, a sign of the bad guy) and, in the process, created a kid’s craze for black shirts (his version of a coonskin cap), breaking its past association with either Italian fascism or mourning and bringing it back into the culture big time. Tell me honestly, then, don’t you think a garden of “heroes” in the age of Trump should have a few black shirts and an increasingly Mussolini-ish look to it?
An American Garden of Blood
So Donald Trump and I both lived through the same TV world in our childhoods and youth. We also lived through 9/11, still in the same city, although unlike him, I wasn’t practically a “first responder” at the site of those two downed towers, nor did I see all the Muslims celebrating across the river in Jersey City (as he claimed he did). Still, of one thing I’m convinced: Donald Trump is Osama bin Laden’s revenge. Current Issue View our current issue
Of course, that was all so long ago. The new century had barely begun. I was only 57 and The Donald 55 when those two hijacked planes suddenly slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in our hometown, a third one plunged into the Pentagon in Washington, and a fourth (probably heading for the White House or the Capitol) crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after its passengers fought back. Ever since, all you have to do is write “9/11” and everyone knows (or thinks they know) what it stands for. But on 9/11, there was, of course, no 9/11.
It was a breathtakingly unexpected event (although, to be fair, the CIA had previously briefed President George W. Bush on Osama bin Laden’s desire to hijack commercial planes for possible terror operations… oh, and there was that FBI agent in Phoenix who urged headquarters “to investigate Middle Eastern men enrolled in American flight schools”). Still, the downing of those towers and part of the headquarters of the singularly victorious military of the ultimate superpower of the Cold War, the one already being called “indispensable” and “exceptional” in 2001, was beyond shocking.
Admittedly, there’s history to be remembered here. After all, it wasn’t actually that military or that Pentagon that downed the Soviet Union. In fact, when the American military fought the Soviets in major proxy wars on a planet where nuclear catastrophe was always just around the corner, it found itself remarkably stalemated in Korea and dismally on the losing side in Vietnam.
No, if you want to give credit where it’s due, offer it to the CIA and Washington’s Saudi allies, who invested staggering effort from 1979 to 1989 in funding, supporting, and training the Taliban’s predecessors, groups of Afghan Islamic extremists, to take down the Red Army in their country. Supporting them as well (though, as far as is known, probably not actually funded by the United States) was a rich young Saudi militant named, believe it or not, Osama bin Laden who, before that war even ended, had founded a group called “the Base” or Al Qaeda, and would, in 1996, declare “war” on the United States. Oh yes, and though it’s seldom mentioned now, when charges are flying fast and furious about the possible recent Russian funding of Taliban militants to kill at most a few Americans in Afghanistan, in those years the United States poured billions of dollars into… well, not to put it too subtly, empowering Islamic extremists to kill the soldiers of that other superpower by the thousands in… yes, Afghanistan. How’s that for shocking?
In 1989, the defeated Red Army finally limped home from what the Soviet Union’s leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had taken to calling “the bleeding wound.” Only two years later, his country imploded and the United States was left alone, officially victorious, on Planet Earth (despite future fantasies of a horrific “axis of evil” to be faced), the first country in endless centuries of imperial rivalry to find itself so.
And what exactly did that triumphantly indispensable, exceptional superpower do but, a decade later, get dive-bombed by 19—just 19!—largely Saudi hijackers in the service of tiny Al Qaeda and that wizard of terror Osama bin Laden, whose urge was then to provoke Washington into a genuine war in the Muslim world and so create yet more Islamic extremists. And did he succeed? You bet—and in a fashion even he undoubtedly hadn’t conceived of in his wildest dreams. Think of 9/11, in fact, as the greatest example of “shock and awe” in this century.
Here’s a feeling I still remember from the weeks after the 9/11 attacks when I saw where the administration of President George W. Bush was heading toward the invasion of Afghanistan and then, God save us, Iraq; when I watched our mainstream media narrow its focus to this country as the most victimized yet dominating and exceptional place on Earth and Osama bin Laden as the ultimate evil on this planet; when I watched the never-ending memorial ceremonies begin and what soon came to be called “the war on terror” be launched with up to 60 (count ’em: 60!) countries in its gunsights, even if I didn’t yet know that, on 9/11 in the damaged Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had turned to an aide and said, “Go Massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not,” with a future invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq clearly in mind, though the Iraqi autocrat had no relation whatsoever to Al Qaeda (something you wouldn’t have known from the top officials in that administration in those years)—when, in short (though I didn’t yet think of it that way), I watched my own country become a “bleeding wound” that has never stopped flowing and, in Donald Trump’s Covid-19 moment, has turned into an American Garden of Blood.
Back in late September 2001, despite having been deeply involved decades earlier in the nightmare of the Vietnam War (and opposition to it), I could already sense war coming, and it occurred to me that this was going to be the worst period I had ever experienced. Now that we’re in Donald Trump’s America, with hundreds of Americans dying daily of a disease that a reasonably responsible president and administration could have brought under control, the 3,000 deaths of 9/11 are beginning to look like a drop in the casualty bucket. (By the beginning of April 2020, Covid-19 deaths in New York City alone had already surpassed those of 9/11 by 1,000.)
And I wasn’t wrong in that hunch about this being the worst period, was I? Mind you, it was just a gut feeling then, no more—even though it would soon enough lead, almost inexorably, to the creation of my website, TomDispatch, and its focus on what turned out to be America’s never-ending wars of this century.
A Passport to Nowhere
Let’s get one thing straight, though. If, at that moment, you had told me that this country was going to launch a series of forever wars across what would turn out to be a significant part of the planet and fight them hopelessly for almost two decades or that, the more success proved absent in those same years, the more one administration after another would pour taxpayer dollars into the US military, the 17 “intelligence” agencies, and the rest of the national security state; that what’s still known, with no accuracy whatsoever, as the “defense budget” would years ago have become larger than those of the next seven best-funded military powers on the planet combined and, by 2020, the next 10, and would still be rising; that domestic investment, from infrastructure to pandemic preparedness, would be starved for money in those same years, and that just about no one would protest any of this in the halls of Congress or the streets of America, I would have thought you a madman—or rather, the world’s best writer of dystopian fiction.
If you had told me that, in those very years, of the two great powers of this century, China and the United States—one rising, the other ever more clearly falling—the latter would lose approximately 7,000 military personnel (and at least another 8,000 military contractors) and many more wounded, not to speak of those who came home with PTSD or, under the pressure of repeated deployments to the sorriest of conflicts, committed suicide, while the former, as The New York Times reported recently in the wake of a bloody (but not weaponized) clash on China’s disputed Himalayan border with India, would have lost next to none, I wouldn’t have believed you. (“In four decades,” as the Times wrote, “the People’s Liberation Army had lost just three soldiers to fighting abroad—troops who were killed in United Nations peacekeeping operations in Mali and South Sudan in 2016.”)
If you had told me that, facing a devastating virus, the leader of one would largely suppress it—admittedly using the most authoritarian of methods—while, in his search for reelection, the leader of the other, officially still the greatest power on the planet, would ignore it, open the economy, churches, schools, and institutions of every sort and watch it run wild without a plan in sight; if you had told me that fewer than 5,000 people would die in the first of those countries and more than 134,000 (and still counting) in the other, leaving the American dead of 9/11 and the bloody wars of this century in the shade, and that it was all only getting worse, I wouldn’t have believed you. Not for a second.
And if, above all, you had told me that, deep into those years of bleeding abroad and increasingly at home, a near majority of Americans would vote to (as I wrote during election campaign 2016) send a suicide bomber into the White House, I would have told you that, though Osama bin Laden had been killed by SEAL Team Six in Pakistan and buried in the briny deep in 2011, Donald Trump was his living revenge, and that bin Laden had won twice—once thanks to those ludicrous, murderous forever wars across much of the Muslim world, and the second time thanks to the pandemic from hell and the president from the same place.
Imagine if, in 1991 when the Soviet Union imploded, I had told you that in 2020, not quite three decades distant, an American passport would be, more or less literally, a document for a trip to nowhere. Talk about a bleeding, or even hemorrhaging, wound! In the years to come, I think it will be ever more obvious that Donald Trump was, in fact, proof of Osama bin Laden’s success, of the fact that 9/11 and those 19 hijackers were all that was needed to produce the world of his dreams and the wounds that went with it.
And if, by the way, you wondered why I wrote this piece with the longest sentences I could possibly create, the answer is simple enough: two decades into the 21st century, I think it should be obvious that Americans have been given an exceptionally, perhaps even indispensably long sentence without parole on a planet already heating to the boiling point, 94,000,000 miles from the sun.
No, this truly won’t be “the American century,” but I doubt it will be the Chinese one either. By the time this crew is done, it may be nobody’s century. Thanks a heap, Osama! This is your bleeding wound, too.


thenation--2020-07-17--The Border Patrol Was Responsible for an Arrest in Portland

For days , federal agents in unmarked cars have reportedly been snatching Portland protesters off the streets .
On Thursday , video emerged of federal agents clad in camouflage fatigues and unspecified “ police ” patches apprehending one such demonstrator and placing him in an unmarked vehicle .
Social media lit up with speculation about the intentions—and the identity—of these agents .
A memo consisting of internal talking points for the federal agency responsible for the arrest , Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) , and obtained exclusively by The Nation provides some answers—and raises even more questions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ titled “ Public Affairs Guidance : CBP Support to Protect Federal Facilities and Property ” and marked “ For Official Use Only.
” It describes a special task force created by the Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) in response to President Trump ’ s Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments , Memorials , and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence .
That task force , the Protecting American Communities Task Force ( PACT ) , has been tasked not only to assess civil unrest but also to “ surge ” resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrest of Mark Pettibone , first reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting , followed several similar arrests involving officers from a Border Patrol Tactical Unit ( BORTAC ) —CBP ’ s equivalent of a SWAT team—as well as the US Marshals Special Operations Group .
A CBP spokesman confirmed to The Nation that CBP agents were responsible for the arrest , pointing to authorities under the Protecting American Communities Task Force .
“ Violent anarchists have organized events in Portland over the last several weeks with willful intent to damage and destroy federal property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and agents , ” said the CBP spokesman .
“ These criminal actions will not be tolerated.
” The talking points memo identifies a series of potential questions , including many of those being asked in response to the Portland arrests .
In several cases , it instructs CBP officials not to answer them , citing “ operational security.
” For example , in response to questions about where CBP personnel are being deployed , the memo says “ it would not be appropriate to disclose law enforcement operational specifics which could jeopardize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when CBP personnel will be deployed and for how long , the memo states , “ We do not give out operational specifics , however we hope this support will be short-term , just for the July 4th weekend.
” The CBP spokesman , however , did not give any indication the operation would be coming to an end .
“ The Department of Homeland Security [ DHS ] and its components will continue to work tirelessly to reestablish law and order , ” he said .
While many people have criticized the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even engaging in conspiracy theories about them , these arrests are likely legal , according to current and former federal law enforcement officials interviewed by The Nation .
And that ’ s exactly what makes them so troubling , explains Jenn Budd , a former senior Border Patrol agent .
“ During the DC protest , many federal agents removed their insignia , ” Budd explained , referring to a June 1 protest in front of the White House where protesters were teargassed .
“ What the agencies discovered was that they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Budd explained .
A former senior DHS intelligence officer explained that while other federal agencies are required to wear identifiers when conducting arrests—NCIS agents have to wear both marked jackets and hats during arrests , for example—that is not the case with the DHS .
“ The fact is , they don ’ t have to do anything in marked vehicles , ” he said .
“ Such operations happen all the time and at the discretion of supervisors.
” “ If it gives them a tactical advantage , they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a current DHS official told The Nation .
But just because the practice is legal , that doesn ’ t mean it works in law enforcement ’ s favor .
“ It ’ s good for public image to have visible police presence as a deterrent , ” the former intelligence officer said .
The memo also addresses the question of whether CBP will deploy drones again .
CBP formerly deployed a predator drone over Minneapolis , to the consternation of many in Congress , who sent CBP a letter excoriating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respond : “ At this time CBP Air and Marine Operations has assets on standby to assist as needed.
” Though CBP frequently uses drones to conduct border surveillance , the Minneapolis incident appeared to be the first time that they had done so in response to domestic protests .
Budd believes the DHS has undergone a “ mission creep ” phenomenon , wherein its mission and authorities have gradually expanded over time—a process carried out cumulatively over the Bush , Obama , and Trump administrations .
“ ‘ Mission creep ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ICE have been engaged in since 9/11 , ” Budd said .
“ There are all sorts of interesting powers that CBP , ICE and Border Patrol have under Title 42 pandemic law , which has been triggered with Trump ’ s Covid-19 national emergency declaration .
Even though he claims we should not be in pandemic lockdown , he refuses to lift the emergency declaration because this gives these agencies more authority .
All of this is legal because of vague and broad authorities given to these agencies after 9/11 .
@

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
For days, federal agents in unmarked cars have reportedly been snatching Portland protesters off the streets. On Thursday, video emerged of federal agents clad in camouflage fatigues and unspecified “police” patches apprehending one such demonstrator and placing him in an unmarked vehicle. Social media lit up with speculation about the intentions—and the identity—of these agents. A memo consisting of internal talking points for the federal agency responsible for the arrest, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and obtained exclusively by The Nation provides some answers—and raises even more questions.
Dated July 1, the memo is titled “Public Affairs Guidance: CBP Support to Protect Federal Facilities and Property” and marked “For Official Use Only.” It describes a special task force created by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to President Trump’s Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combating Recent Criminal Violence. That task force, the Protecting American Communities Task Force (PACT), has been tasked not only to assess civil unrest but also to “surge” resources to protect against it.
The Portland arrest of Mark Pettibone, first reported by Oregon Public Broadcasting, followed several similar arrests involving officers from a Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC)—CBP’s equivalent of a SWAT team—as well as the US Marshals Special Operations Group. A CBP spokesman confirmed to The Nation that CBP agents were responsible for the arrest, pointing to authorities under the Protecting American Communities Task Force.
“Violent anarchists have organized events in Portland over the last several weeks with willful intent to damage and destroy federal property, as well as injure federal officers and agents,” said the CBP spokesman. “These criminal actions will not be tolerated.” Secret Police Trump Unleashes His Secret Police in Portland Jeet Heer
The talking points memo identifies a series of potential questions, including many of those being asked in response to the Portland arrests. In several cases, it instructs CBP officials not to answer them, citing “operational security.” For example, in response to questions about where CBP personnel are being deployed, the memo says “it would not be appropriate to disclose law enforcement operational specifics which could jeopardize operational security.” As for questions about when CBP personnel will be deployed and for how long, the memo states, “We do not give out operational specifics, however we hope this support will be short-term, just for the July 4th weekend.” The CBP spokesman, however, did not give any indication the operation would be coming to an end. “The Department of Homeland Security [DHS] and its components will continue to work tirelessly to reestablish law and order,” he said.
While many people have criticized the alleged lawlessness of the arrests, some even engaging in conspiracy theories about them, these arrests are likely legal, according to current and former federal law enforcement officials interviewed by The Nation. And that’s exactly what makes them so troubling, explains Jenn Budd, a former senior Border Patrol agent. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
“During the DC protest, many federal agents removed their insignia,” Budd explained, referring to a June 1 protest in front of the White House where protesters were teargassed. “What the agencies discovered was that they could do this without much blowback from Congress,” Budd explained. Current Issue View our current issue
A former senior DHS intelligence officer explained that while other federal agencies are required to wear identifiers when conducting arrests—NCIS agents have to wear both marked jackets and hats during arrests, for example—that is not the case with the DHS. “The fact is, they don’t have to do anything in marked vehicles,” he said. “Such operations happen all the time and at the discretion of supervisors.”
“If it gives them a tactical advantage, they will find a way to justify it,” a current DHS official told The Nation.
But just because the practice is legal, that doesn’t mean it works in law enforcement’s favor. “It’s good for public image to have visible police presence as a deterrent,” the former intelligence officer said.
The memo also addresses the question of whether CBP will deploy drones again. CBP formerly deployed a predator drone over Minneapolis, to the consternation of many in Congress, who sent CBP a letter excoriating the agency. The memo instructs CBP representatives to respond: “At this time CBP Air and Marine Operations has assets on standby to assist as needed.”
Though CBP frequently uses drones to conduct border surveillance, the Minneapolis incident appeared to be one of the first times that they had done so in response to domestic protests. Budd believes the DHS has undergone a “mission creep” phenomenon, wherein its mission and authorities have gradually expanded over time—a process carried out cumulatively over the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.
“‘Mission creep’ is what CBP, Border Patrol, and ICE have been engaged in since 9/11,” Budd said. “There are all sorts of interesting powers that CBP, ICE and Border Patrol have under Title 42 pandemic law, which has been triggered with Trump’s Covid-19 national emergency declaration. Even though he claims we should not be in pandemic lockdown, he refuses to lift the emergency declaration because this gives these agencies more authority. All of this is legal because of vague and broad authorities given to these agencies after 9/11.”
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that the deployment of a predator drone by Customs and Border Protection over the Minneapolis protests in May was the first time a CBP drone has been deployed in response to domestic protests. The CBP also deployed drones over protests at Standing Rock between 2016 and 2017.