More stories

  • in

    What does it actually mean when we talk about the American ‘working class’? | Rebecca Solnit

    In the aftermath of the election, the working class was constantly invoked and rarely defined – invoked as a badge of authenticity, as the people who really matter, as the salt of the earth, the ones politicians should woo or be chastised for failing to woo sufficiently. Who exactly is in this category? I asked around, and the definitions didn’t just vary – they wobbled, clashed and blurred.The more nebulous something is, the more it can mean anything useful to the speaker or writer. I thought of Alice Through the Looking Glass:
    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
    When a word means whatever you choose it to mean, it becomes a cudgel for your cause, while it fails to do what I want words to do, which is to describe the world in ways that make things more clear and coherent.So what is the working class? Is it income levels or education, when some who work in the trades earn splendid annual incomes and some white-collar work mires people in poverty? Is it the kind of work or the status of being an employee, when the person who works for a construction company may go on to become a contractor herself?A Marxist told me it’s about whether or not you own the means of production, but this theoretical contractor, like many a construction worker, owns a F250 pickup truck and a lot of tools and maybe a garage workshop, just as many farmers own or inherit land.Someone else said it meant being paid by the hour, rather than salaried, but lawyers and legal experts bill (lavishly) by the hour. And more and more people work in the gig economy or are otherwise casual labor seen as self-employed or as subcontractors, not employees. Someone else insisted it’s about whether or not you have unearned income, but many a union person or employee of a big firm has a stake in a pension fund invested in the stock market.Another criterion was education levels, though quite a few people’s time in college netted them little but debt to be paid off via pink- or blue-collar work. In California, our public universities claim a lot of first-generation students, but the community college system defines that as people whose parents did not go to college at all, while the University of California system defines it as anyone whose parents didn’t graduate from college. The California State University system, meanwhile, has wobbly definitions: “In one scenario, 31% of CSU students are considered first generation; according to another definition, 52% are.”What’s clear about first-generation students is that some who grow up in blue-collar families become white-collar professionals and thereby have a foot in both worlds and sometimes an identity in tension with their current status. A lot of us worked entry-level jobs before entering a profession – before I was 21 I supported myself as a salesperson, a dishwasher, a data processor and a waitress. Upward economic mobility is central to the American dream and the draw for immigrants; downward mobility, debt peonage and destitution have been at the heart of the American nightmare set up by Reaganomics and the other forces creating a super-elite and a desperate underclass.One thing that’s been dismally obvious since 2016 is that by working class some speakers really mean white men, and imagine that group in nostalgic terms, as hardhat wearers and factory workers or as red-blooded rural Americans, even though much of the lower-income population is not white or male or rural. It’s janitors and nail salon workers and hotel maids, casual labor and delivery people and home healthcare aides.I’m not arguing that the working class doesn’t exist, and there are a lot of workers we would probably all agree belong to this class – but the borders and thereby the definitions are blurry, and the frame is too often invoked for other agendas.The idea that the working class is white men too readily becomes a justification for politics that pander to white male prejudices and entitlements, since white men are the single most right-leaning demographic. Framed that way, it often seems to mean: shut up about rights for women and non-white people. Meanwhile about 92% of Black women, a great many of whom meet most of these definitions of working class, voted for Kamala Harris, which is a reminder that talking about class without talking about gender and race flattens out a complex terrain (the same goes, of course, for talking about gender or race without the other two).Harris mostly spoke about the middle class, which many identify with whether or not they fit some of these criteria for the working class; I don’t think her rival used the term “working class” at all but pandered to white racism, misogyny and transphobia, each of which can fracture solidarity and even the perception of common ground, including economic common ground.In the end, all that’s clear is that we had an election in which the party that was supposed to be elitist was not the party whose candidate was a billionaire, the one put back in office in no small part through the machinations of the richest man in the world because they agreed on an economic agenda of cutting taxes for the rich and further impoverishing the poor.“Elite” is another nebulous word that pretends that somehow human rights are an upscale product like designer handbags or that the majority of us in this country – if you add up women, Bipoc, queer and trans people, immigrants, etc – are a special interest group. In this framework, the 26% or so that is white and male is imagined as the majority, perhaps because they once owned and ran nearly everything.White male grievance is a powerful force that cuts across class, as exemplified by the habitual whining of the billionaires. Those billionaires also own too many of the means of information production, from Twitter and Facebook to the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post. Those and other means encouraged people to perceive themselves by many criteria that don’t include class or economics, but do include a lot of kinds of resentment.This was part of a package deal, of a whole lot of people getting a lot of misinformation about the sources of their problems and the potential solutions, which encouraged many of them to vote against their own and their economic peers’ self-interest. The lack of clarity about what the working class is is only one part of the ongoing problem of misinformation and missing information.

    Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. She is the author of Orwell’s Roses and co-editor with Thelma Young Lutunatabua of the climate anthology Not Too Late: Changing the Climate Story from Despair to Possibility More

  • in

    Raskin seeks to lead Democrats on House judiciary in ‘fight of our lives’ against Trump

    Jamie Raskin, the Maryland congressman who spearheaded the second impeachment of Donald Trump, has announced a bid to unseat a veteran Democratic colleague from a key role in a Capitol Hill committee as part of a party drive to sharpen its opposition in preparation for Trump’s return to the White House.After days of speculation, Raskin said he would challenge Jerrold Nadler of New York for the post of ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives’ judiciary committee.The move signals Democratic conviction that the committee could become one of the most important Capitol Hill forums in which to combat Trump’s stated goal of installing loyalists at the justice department and FBI with the brief of purging supposedly disloyal officials and pursuing retribution against political enemies.The Republicans will control the House with a wafer thin majority – expected to be 220-215, with one race from last month’s election still to be officially called – when Congress returns in the new year, further raising the stakes of effective committee opposition.Raskin, currently the ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee, announced he was challenging 77-year-old Nadler, who he acknowledged as a friend, in an open letter.“We are in the fight of our lives. The stakes have gone way up since the election,” Raskin wrote. “House Democrats must stand in the breach to defend the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy. We dare not fail.”Explaining the key role of the judiciary committee, he added: “This is where we will wage our front-line defense of the freedoms and rights of the people, the integrity of the Department of Justice and the FBI, and the security of our most precious birthright possessions: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and democracy itself.”Raskin, who played a leading role in the House investigation into the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, had been urged by colleagues to run amid doubts over Nadler’s ability to combat Trump’s agenda, as advanced by the committee’s pugnacious Republican chair, Jim Jordan.A former constitutional law professor, Raskin, 61, played the role of leading impeachment manager against Trump following the riot. The House impeached the then sitting president for his role in the episode. A Senate trial the following month failed to garner the two-thirds majority vote to convict that would have barred him from seeking office again.Nadler has been criticised by colleagues for a pedestrian speaking style that sticks to talking points, whereas Raskin is widely seen as more spontaneous and combative.The New York Times reported that Nadler had expressed anger to Raskin – who he previously supported to be the party’s leading figure on the oversight committee – at the prospect of a challenge.Among those having reportedly urged Raskin to mount a challenge has been Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, who continues to wield influence in the party’s congressional caucus.Nadler’s challenge is part of a broader attempt by Democrats to replace some of their most senior ranking figures with younger faces on key committees.Raúl Grijalva, 76, the ranking Democrat on the House natural resources committee, announced on Monday that he was withdrawing after being challenged for the position by Jared Huffman, 60, who has promoted himself as being able to “limit the damage from Trump’s Project 2025 agenda”. More

  • in

    Joe Biden criticized by some supporters for pardoning son Hunter: ‘Selfish move’

    Joe Biden has been criticised by some of his own supporters for issuing a pardon to his son Hunter that he had previously sworn not to give.The president’s volte face drew predictable fire from Republicans, led by the president-elect, Donald Trump, who used it to raise the case of the jailed ringleaders of the 6 January 2021 assault on the US Capitol, who he has suggested he will pardon when he returns to the White House.“Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.Yet it was condemnation from fellow Democrats – some of whom said he had handed Trump justification for his own use of the presidential pardon power – that seemed likely to carry greater sting.Jared Polis, the Democratic governor of Colorado, said Biden had risked his own reputation and legacy.“While as a father I certainly understand President @JoeBiden’s natural desire to help his son by pardoning him, I am disappointed that he put his family ahead of the country,” Polis posted on X.“This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later Presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation.“When you become President, your role is Pater familias of the nation. Hunter brought the legal trouble he faced on himself, and one can sympathize with his struggles while also acknowledging that no one is above the law, not a President and not a President’s son.”Hunter Biden was convicted by a court in Delaware last June of lying on a gun licence application at a time when he was addicted to cocaine. He was later convicted of separate tax evasion charges in a court in California.He was scheduled to be sentenced for both convictions in hearings this month.Biden justified his pardon by insisting that Hunter’s prosecutions had been driven by “raw politics” and would not have been pressed had his father not been president.That interpretation was rejected by Greg Stanton, a Democratic House member for Arizona.“I respect President Biden, but I think he got this one wrong,” he posted on social media.“This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution. Hunter committed felonies, and was convicted by a jury of his peers.”There was further condemnation from Michael Bennet, a Democratic senator for Colorado, who was prominent among those calling for Biden to step aside as the party’s presidential nominee last summer following a bad debate performance.“President Biden’s decision put personal interest ahead of duty and further erodes Americans’ faith that the justice system is fair and equal for all,” he wrote on X.Peter Welch, a Democratic senator for Vermont, said the pardon was “as the action of a loving father, understandable – but as the action of our nation’s Chief Executive, unwise”.In similar vein, Greg Landsman, a Democratic congressman for Ohio, posted: “As a father, I get it. But as someone who wants people to believe in public service again, it’s a setback.”Joe Walsh, an anti-Trump former Republican congressman who endorsed Biden for president, called the pardon deflating because it enabled Trump to validate his own much-criticised pardons of friends and supporters.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“This just furthers the cynicism that people have about politics,” he told MSNBC. “That cynicism strengthens Trump because Trump can just say: ‘I’m not a unique threat. Everybody does this. If I do something for my kid, my son-in-law, look, Joe Biden does the same thing.’ I get it, but this was a selfish move by Biden which politically only strengthens Trump.”In the Atlantic magazine, Jonathan Chait argued that the president had undermined the democratic values that he had previously championed.“Principles become much harder to defend when their most famous defenders have compromised them flagrantly,” he wrote.“With the pardon decision, like his stubborn insistence on running for a second term he couldn’t win, Biden chose to prioritize his own feelings over the defense of his country.”Some Democrats leaped to Biden’s defence.“Hunter. Here’s the reality. No US [attorney] would have charged this case given the underlying facts,” Eric Holder, an attorney general under Barack Obama, wrote on X.“Had his name been Joe Smith the resolution would have been – fundamentally and more fairly – a declination. Pardon warranted.”Jasmine Crockett, a Texas member of the House of Representatives, went further, saying: “Let me be the first to congratulate the president.”“At the end of the day, we know that we have a 34-count convicted felon that is about to walk into the White House,” she told MSNBC, referring to Trump’s conviction by a New York court on document falsification charges relating to hush money paid to a porn actor.Alluding to allegations against several of Trump’s cabinet nominees, she added: “For anyone that wants to clutch their pearls now because [Biden] decided that he was going to pardon his son, I would say take a look in the mirror because we also know that … this cabinet has more people accused of sexual assault than any incoming cabinet probably in the history of America.”Sarah Longwell, another anti-Trump Republican strategist who endorsed Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, wrote: “‘Trump is worse’ is never a good argument to justify bad behavior.“Biden knows it’s wrong. That’s why he committed over and over to not doing it. It doesn’t make him the same as Trump. It doesn’t erase how singularly corrupt Trump’s current appointments are. It’s simply wrong and we should say so, lest we forget that right and wrong still exist and awareness of it matters in our President.” More

  • in

    Joe Biden issues pardon for son Hunter as Trump rails against ‘miscarriage of justice’ – US politics live

    President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to pardon those convicted after storming the US Capitol in Washington on January 2021 and took the opportunity to raise the issue.“Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?“Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social social media platform.A loving act of mercy by a father who has already known much sorrow? Or a hypocritical political manoeuvre reminiscent of his great foe? Maybe both can be true.Joe Biden’s announcement on Sunday that he had pardoned his son Hunter, who is facing sentencing in two criminal cases, is likely to have been the product of a Shakespearean struggle between head and heart.On the one hand, Biden is one of the last great institutionalists in Washington. “From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making,” he said in an unusually direct and personal statement on Sunday. To undermine the separation of powers goes against every fibre of his political being.On the other hand, Biden is nothing without family. His speeches are peppered with references to his parents. As a senator, he once took a train from Washington to Wilmington, Delaware, so he could blow out the candles on a birthday cake for his eight-year-old daughter, Ashley, at the station, then cross the platform and take the next train back to work.Biden was profoundly shaped by the death of his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden, and 13-month-old daughter Naomi in a car accident and, much later, the death of his son Beau from brain cancer. In that context, Hunter’s status as the first child of a sitting president to face criminal charges will have pained his father in what Ernest Hemingway called “the broken places”.Read my full analysis below
    Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.
    The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.
    No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.
    For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.
    Hunter Biden issued a statement following his father’s announcement“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction – mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” Hunter Biden said in a statement on Sunday, adding he had remained sober for more than five years.“In the throes of addiction, I squandered many opportunities and advantages … I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”Hello and welcome to our live coverage of US politics.On Sunday night, before boarding a plane to Angola, US president Joe Biden issued a pardon to his son Hunter – something he had repeatedly said he would not do.Biden said he hoped the American people would understand his decision to issue the pardons over convictions on federal gun and tax charges.“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong,” he said.Hunter Biden was scheduled to be sentenced for his conviction on federal gun charges on 12 December.He was scheduled to be sentenced in the tax case four days later. Joe Biden is just weeks away from leaving office. More

  • in

    Wisconsin’s Ben Wikler joins race for Democratic National Committee chair

    Wisconsin Democratic leader Ben Wikler joined the race to lead the Democratic National Committee on Sunday, promising “to take on Trump, Republican extremists, and move our country forward”, as the party looks to rebuild from its losses in the November election.In a video posted on social networks, Wikler, 43, touted his state party’s success in organizing to flip 14 state legislative seats and send Senator Tammy Baldwin back to Washington DC in November, and in previously campaigns to win control of the state supreme court and re-elect governor Tony Evers. Wikler, a former podcaster, Air America radio producer and headline writer for The Onion, also stressed his new media expertise.Wikler who has been involved in Democratic party politics since age 11, previously served as a producer on comedian-turned-politician Al Franken’s radio show and as Washington director for the progressive action group MoveOn, where he played a role in the successful battle to save the Affordable Care Act.“Our values – the core belief that our economy should work for working people, and that every person has inherent dignity and deserves freedom and respect – are American values,” Willer wrote on Bluesky. “But they’re not MAGA values. The richest and most powerful people want to divide us and enrich themselves.”“We’ve got to make sure that we are reaching people with the message that we are on their side and fighting for them,” Wikler told Reuters in a telephone interview.Wikler, who has served as chair of the Democratic party of Wisconsin since 2019, is among several candidates looking to replace Jaime Harrison, the current chair who is not seeking re-election when the party votes early next year.Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, Minnesota Democratic chief Ken Martin and New York state senator James Skoufis also are vying to become the new Democratic chair.Democrats are trying to chart the way forward after losing the White House and control of the Senate, as well as failing to retake the House of Representatives.Wikler said the national party could learn from organizing efforts he has overseen in Wisconsin, even though Kamala Harris narrowly lost the state to Trump.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWikler said Democrats also need to focus on the president-elect’s economic agenda, which he claimed will favor wealthy Americans rather than working families.“For Democrats, this is a critical time to unite and fight back against Trump’s plans,” Wikler said.Wikler’s entry into the race was welcomed by the teachers union leader Randi Weingarten, who wrote that he “understands how to organize and communicate”, and journalist Connie Schultz, who knows Wikler from his time as spokesperson for her husband, Senator Sherrod Brown. More

  • in

    Democrats ignored pleas to address price of ‘eggs and gas’, campaigners say

    Saru Jayaraman tried. As far back as January, the president of low-pay campaign group One Fair Wage recalls telling Democratic leaders in Washington DC that voters were worried about the cost of living.“It just went on deaf ears,” she said. “One of the biggest challenges we faced was they kept wanting to talk about the economy. And we kept saying, it’s not about the economy, it’s about our economy: it’s about my economy, my ability to pay for eggs and gas.”“And so, it was no surprise to us that people did not turn out, why people did not feel incredibly motivated – whether they didn’t vote or they voted for Kamala or they voted for Trump,” said Jayaraman, director of the food labor research center at University of California, Berkeley. “There was a universal feeling of ‘you’re not listening to us.’”A single mom working three jobs as a waitress, and struggling to make ends meet on a sub-minimum tipped wage, is “not going to take time out of her three jobs to vote for either person”, she added. “There’s no future for the party unless they really address the needs of working people. And I use the word ‘address’. It isn’t just running on the issue.”Democrats face calls to actSam Taub has worked as a server for the past 10 years in Michigan, one of the key election swing states, which swung from Joe Biden in 2020 to Donald Trump in 2024. Taub was not that surprised by this year’s result.“You see a lot of generalizations of people who live in the midwest, people who are working class and people who are working-class in the midwest,” he said. “And as somebody who is one of those people, it is a little bit frustrating to hear people say that they’re listening to you – and then not actually listen to you.“The message that Democrats really need to understand is that they can’t assume that they already know what people think and what people need.”View image in fullscreenTaub is one of hundreds of service industry workers who backed an open letter, organized by One Fair Wage in the wake of the 2024 election results, urging the Democratic party to do more to address the needs of working people.Democrats at the state level need to fight to protect workers rights even more given the upcoming second Trump administration, he argued, and push back against industry efforts to scale back or prevent policies, such as raising the sub-minimum wage for servers in Michigan, from taking effect.“It’s pretty obvious Donald Trump is not going to protect workers’ rights, so it’s really important for politicians at the state level to do everything that is within their power to protect workers,” said Taub. “By getting rid of the sub-minimum wage, which is something that’s happening gradually, we can help a lot of people.”Juan Carlos Romero, a bartender in New York City, has worked in the restaurant industry for 16 years. “It’s really hard to try to make ends meet” in this economy, he said.Under Trump workers in the service industry aren’t going to see improvements, he suggested, arguing that the incoming administration’s proposals – such as eliminating taxes on tips – overlook the fundamental issue that so many service workers are in precarious economic circumstances because they rely on tips and sub-minimum hourly wages.Democrats must use the final weeks before Trump takes office “to support us”, he added. “I think our desperation comes from the reality that we see, and especially if wages stay like this, [that] they’re going to continue to affect people on a daily basis. So it really is a call to action that is desperately needed by folks in the industry.”Fears of recessionCampaigners and academics fear the Democratic party’s losses of the White House and Senate majority, and its failure to retake the House majority will leave workers on lower incomes – especially immigrants – vulnerable.“One of the consequences of this election is that the government backs away from having people’s back when they want to join a union,” said Sharon Block, executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School. “There’s just a cool irony to that that I think is just devastating: this is a time when people need to be in a union more than ever.”Deportation plans targeting undocumented and temporary workers are already inciting fear among these workers. Immigration groups are pushing Biden to solidify protections for immigrants before he leaves office in January.“I think that the anti-immigrant fervor out of Trump and his acolytes is terrifying and defies humanity,” said Judy Conti, director of government affairs at the National Employment Law Project. “And I think immigrant workers everywhere have reason to be worried about discrimination, potential violence, workplace raids.”Trump’s proposed tariffs, and the impact they may have on the costs of basic goods and necessities, are also causing concern.“If they’re not talking about raising wages, which they’re not, but they’re talking about making all of the goods and services that we need for our day-to-day lives 20% more expensive,” warned Conti. “I have fears of recession, and certainly fears that things are going to be less affordable for the people who can’t afford it most.”Democrats who still hold office nationwide are facing calls to help such people when Trump reaches the White House. “Even if you fail,” the One Fair Wage letter said, “at least we’ll see you fighting for once.” More

  • in

    Sanctuary cities respond to Trump deportation plans: ‘We’re preparing to defend our communities’

    Mike Johnston, the mayor of Denver, joined a drumbeat of local leaders in left-leaning cities across the country earlier this month to say he’s willing to protest the incoming Trump administration’s expected mass deportation efforts.He told local outlet Denverite that Denver police would be “stationed at the county line” to keep federal authorities out. “It’s like the Tiananmen Square moment with the rose and the gun, right?” he said. He then walked back the comments about using local police, but still said he would protest deportations – even being willing to go to jail for it.“I’m not afraid of that and I’m also not seeking that,” he told 9News.Donald Trump’s “border czar”, Tom Homan, said that’s one area where he and Johnston agree. “He’s willing to go to jail, I’m willing to put him in jail,” Homan told Fox on Tuesday.The back and forth is indicative of what’s to come, as liberal cities and states plan to push back against Trump’s mass deportation plans. The resistance will likely come with a backlash from Trump, who could withhold federal funds or, as Homan threatened, arrest local leaders who stand in his way. Trump’s team is reportedly figuring out ways the president could unilaterally remove federal resources from Democratic cities that don’t go along with deportation plans.The stature is not new for some cities. Some have had so-called “sanctuary city” policies in place since before Trump’s first term, promising not to aid federal immigration and customs enforcement agents as they seek to detain and deport immigrants. Some additionally have programs to provide support to migrants and to manage what data they collect on undocumented populations.Other cities and states choose to cooperate with agents by providing them information and resources to identify and detain migrants – and some state laws bar cities from adopting sanctuary policies. Texas, for instance, has offered up state land to use for deportation facilities.Sanctuary policies can slow deportations and, local officials hope, deter immigration agents from targeting their communities because operations there would encounter organized resistance and cost more money to carry out.“They work – that’s why the Trump administration hates them,” said Naureen Shah, the deputy director of government affairs for the American Civil Liberties Union. “The Biden administration doesn’t like those policies either.”For his second term, Trump and his appointees have threatened a more forceful and broad deportation plan, though they have not offered details on what it will look like. Trump has said he will activate the military to carry out deportations, and there are likely to be flashy raids in Democratic cities that defy him.ICE has limited resources and has historically preferred to conduct raids in localities where it has local cooperation, though in his first term, Trump still sought to deport people from cities that opposed deportations. Immigration advocates expect a blend of these two strategies – with some showdowns in “sanctuary” places as a show of force.“Some of the raids will be in the red states where they have a lot of support from state and local law enforcement, because that’s just going to help them reach the numbers that they want to reach,” Shah said. “They’re also going to want to make people feel very afraid and very unsafe in the blue states. They’re going to want to create that sense that there is no safe sanctuary. That’s part of their game. So I don’t think that we should be comfortable in any part of the country.”What cities are doingAround the country, mayors and city councils are discussing how they can protect local immigrants from a mass deportation campaign. Cities cannot stop federal authorities from deporting people, but depending on state laws, they can refuse to use local resources or voluntarily provide information to assist in these operations. In Los Angeles, the city council approved a sanctuary policy earlier this month, with one council member saying the city would be “hardening our defenses” against Trump.Homan spoke out against the city on Newsmax. “If you don’t wanna help, get the hell outta the way,” he told the rightwing outlet. “If I gotta send twice as many officers to LA because we’re not getting any assistance, then that’s what we’re going to do. We got a mandate. President Trump is serious about this. I’m serious about this. This is gonna happen with or without you.”Chicago’s Democratic leaders have reignited trainings similar to those communities there went through during Trump’s first term. The trainings are designed to teach people how to spot and respond to immigration enforcement actions.Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, an alderman on Chicago’s city council, said a local training in mid-November drew nearly 600 people – six times as many as the first training in 2017. The group is also getting started earlier.“Trump is promising massive deportations on day one, and we’re preparing to defend our communities on day one,” he said.During Trump’s first term, hundreds of people in Ramirez-Rosa’s ward were ready to stand against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) using tactics such as bicycle brigades, which ultimately were not needed at that time. Still, being organized can serve as a deterrent to immigration agents, who want the lowest cost and easiest operations possible, he said. “Ultimately, the organized community is the safest community,” Ramirez-Rosa said.Slowing down deportations means fewer people are deported, though he acknowledges the policies can only go so far. “At the end of the day, nothing can preclude federal immigration agents from coming into your community, pulling people over, knocking on people’s doors. No local law can prohibit the federal government from enforcing immigration law in your community or in your neighborhood.”He said local officials should make sure policies are ready when Trump takes office, but also preparing the community to organize against deportations and engage in nonviolent civil disobedience. They should also be figuring out what local resources they can use to help migrants through legal clinics or cash assistance, while being mindful about the data they collect and how it could be accessed by federal authorities to find and deport migrants, he said.“We, as residents, as US citizens, really do need to be thinking about how do we leverage our collective power to defend our immigrant neighbors?” Ramirez-Rosa said. “Do we surround Ice vehicles when they come into our neighborhood? Those are all risks that US citizens in particular should be thinking about taking at this time. But of course, doing that in a way that is strategic and organized, peaceful and really mitigates the harm, particularly towards undocumented people.”What Trump could do in responseTrump has said he will call a national emergency and then use the military to help carry out a mass deportation campaign. The use of the military, in particular, would bring up a host of legal questions.“The use of the military on domestic soil should worry all of us, but there’s plenty of harm that the Trump administration could seek to do just by using state and local law enforcement as the force multiplier to mass deportation,” Shah said. “And so sealing off access to the extent possible is going to be significant. It slows them down. It stymies their ability to act at the scale and speed that they want to.”The Trump administration is likely to try to deny federal funds to cities and states to get them to play ball. One idea floated in Project 2025, the conservative manifesto, called for withholding federal emergency assistance grants as a way to compel cities to detain undocumented immigrants and share sensitive data with the federal government for immigration enforcement purposes.The second Trump administration is coming into office emboldened by a strong electoral college win and a US supreme court ruling that granted a president immunity from criminal charges for actions taken in his official capacity.But the Trump administration will still need Congress’s help to expand their authority. A key test will be whether Congress agrees to take away funding from cities that don’t want to participate in deportation efforts, Shah said.“We’re going to be firing on all cylinders, and we’ll answer their blitz of policies with our own blitz.” More