Trump administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I don’t want to give money to this America’: tourists’ fears of US travel under Trump

      by

      Last year, while Joe Biden was US president, Jenny and her husband booked a trip to Boston for June 2025.The British couple had been to New York before and wanted to see more of the country. But after Donald Trump’s re-election in November, Jenny said a “shadow” began to fall on their travel plans.Since Trump took office, reports have emerged from US border points of tourists being detained and interrogated, people with work permits sent to Ice detention centres and even a US citizen seemingly told to leave the country – as well as people being wrongly deported.Overseas visits to the US were down 11.6% in March compared with the same month last year, according to the US National Travel and Tourism Office.“I had a growing feeling that I really didn’t want to give this new America our money,” said Jenny, a 54-year-old former librarian from Northamptonshire. “But it took the news of the detainments at airports and borders to really crystallise our concerns into action.”The pair decided to cancel the trip.Dozens of people responded to an online callout to share their views about travelling to the US in light of the Trump administration’s policies. While several people reported no problems entering and leaving the US, others spoke of anxiety at the border and unpleasant interactions with officials – although many people raised it as being a longstanding problem.Jenny said it was frightening to see the reports of detainments and deportations in the supposed “land of the free”.After deciding not to travel, “we just feel so relieved,” she said. “We’ve now cancelled the flights and hotel and are heading to Crete for a week instead. We’ll visit Boston when Trump is long gone.”Several people who got in touch after travelling to the US recently reported no problem at the border. Sarah, a 39-year-old who works in financial services and lives in Hertfordshire, took her seven-year-old daughter to Miami, the Everglades and the Disney and Universal parks in Orlando this spring.“We were a little nervous about going, given recent coverage,” she said. “Amusingly, our seven-year-old asked earlier this year: ‘Are we still going to America now that man is back?’”Gruff border officials aside, at the airport they found everything was fine. “My husband and I had a conversation about how we’re probably quite privileged at the border, compared to some other families,” Sarah said.“It did make me think, am I being disproportionately frightened of something because of hearing coverage about rare or edge-cases? I tend to be quite data-driven, so hearing these stories in the news, we tried not to worry and just thought that we’ve done everything we need to do with visas and paperwork.”Sarah said her daughter had a great time in Florida and at the parks. “When we got out the airport in Miami, she said: ‘The cars are massive!’”But for some foreign citizens with partners from the US, travelling there feels particularly anxiety-inducing. Paul*, a 44-year-old French citizen living close to the Swiss border, is in a long-distance relationship with his fiancee, who lives in Detroit. He plans to fly from Paris to Chicago in June.“I am very uneasy about travelling because I fear being denied entry – or worse, being detained for whatever reason – and never being able to set foot in the US again,” he said. “As my fiancee and I are planning on getting married in the US in the autumn, this would seriously jeopardise our plans.” For now, he plans to fly.One silver lining of the heightened attention on the US border, he said, could be the exposure of longstanding unsavoury practices.“Rightfully, we’re all appalled at these recent stories,” Paul said, adding that he hoped these incidents would allow westerners to reflect on how border authorities had long treated certain groups.Alex, 39, a Dutch civil servant with a Peruvian background, said when he was flying to Peru to see family in 2017 he was subjected to a “very angry” interrogation by a border official during a layover in Miami. He said they examined his computer and books and asked if he was a communist.“I think it was intimidation for its own sake,” Alex said. “In all honesty I’m quite scared to travel to the US, but at the same time I can’t help but have this strong feeling of irony about this whole situation. Europeans now can face a treatment by the US that was previously reserved for folks from developing countries.”*Some names have been changed. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Harvard shows resistance is possible. But universities must join forces | Jan-Werner Müller

      by

      Harvard is refusing the plainly illegal demands by the Trump administration. That sends an important signal: resistance is possible.But universities must realize that the government is adopting a divide-and-rule tactic: they should collaborate on a shared litigation strategy, take a common approach in getting the public on their side, and do everything possible to have Congress push back against Trump treating money allocated by the legislature as if it were a private slush fund to be used for political blackmail. Some faculty have already begun to unite. In principle, not just progressives, but self-respecting conservatives – if any remain – should be responsive to such a three-pronged strategy.It has become abundantly clear that Trump 2.0 is using a moral panic about “woke” and pro-Palestinian protests as pretexts to subjugate institutions posing multiple threats to aspiring autocrats: universities constitute an independent source of information; they encourage critical thinking; they gather in one spot young people easily outraged by injustices. Of course, like all institutions, they have flaws; but, unlike, let’s say, businesses, they give wide latitude to criticism and position-taking (if you think colleges are censoring speech, try some political oratory on the factory floor or in the boardroom).Some academic leaders think they might mollify the Trumpists, or at least get a better deal, if they concede points about allegedly widespread antisemitism, as well as supposed indoctrination and discrimination. Self-criticism should of course be part of university life, but trumpeting on page-one op-eds that there are deep structural problems with higher education is naive at best. For one thing, there are no simple generalizations about the roughly 4,000 colleges and universities in the US; even what are usually called “elite universities” are hardly all the same.Yet far too many academics are uncritically repeating the right’s propaganda about a “free speech crisis” and conservatives feeling marginalized. Is it perhaps relevant that the most popular majors remain business and health sciences – subjects hardly taught by dogmatic lefties hell-bent on silencing dissent? Is it just about possible that some much-cited statistics – that many more professors vote for the Democrats – have more to do with the GOP having turned itself into the anti-science party, rather than professors all wanting to corrupt the youth with socialist nonsense?Even those worried about what the government’s letter to Harvard called “ideological capture” might balk at the proposed remedy: what can only be called totalitarian social engineering in the name of assuring “viewpoint diversity”. The government seeks to subject an entire university to an ideology audit: both faculty and students would have to be tested for “viewpoints” – whatever that means exactly. If an imbalance were to be found, departments would have to bring in what the Trumpist education commissars call a “critical mass” of faculty and students with viewpoints deemed politically correct by the commissars.This is not just an attack on academic freedom; it is a license to investigate individuals’ minds and consciences (could a student be hiding a secret interest in Judith Butler? Only extensive interrogations would reveal the truth!). Might students be encouraged to denounce their professors, in ways already popular on rightwing websites? Might professors in turn be encouraged to tell on their charges (he looks preppy, but he once wrote an essay on gender ideology)?Besides the obvious contradiction of violating freedoms in the name of freedom, there is the rank hypocrisy of demanding “viewpoint diversity” while seeking to outlaw any diversity initiatives not based on political ideology. And the practical enforcement of viewpoint diversity would probably also be a tad uneven: no economics department would be forced to hire Marxists; evangelical colleges are unlikely to be led towards balance by having to bring in a “critical mass” of faculty promoting atheism.Trumpists are trying hard to frame university leaders as feeling “entitled” – one small step from calling them welfare queens and kings parasitic to the taxpayer. Education, they insinuate, is a luxury for spoilt kids, research a pretext for faculty to impose loony personal beliefs. If one accepts this framing, an otherwise inexplicable idea starts to make sense: Christopher Rufo, the much-platformed strategist of the attacks on academic freedom, wants to “reduce the size of the sector itself”.Why would one want to deny opportunities for kids to learn and for research to advance, unless one fears critical thinking? Or unless one has a completely warped view – Musk-style – of how science actually works? Or unless one exhibits willful ignorance of the fact that the government does not just shovel cash to universities so they can organize more pride parades, but that it concludes contracts for research after highly competitive selection processes?Clearly, the Trump administration is in the business of unprecedented national self-harm. Those who think of themselves as “conserving” must ask whether they really want to be part of an orgy of destruction. Those who say they worship the founders must wonder whether they can tolerate daily violations of the constitution, as Trump works to impound funds approved by Congress (for research, among other things).Self-declared free speech defenders must question why they would support an administration inspired more by Mao than by Madison. And those who just want to hold on to basic decency must ask whether they can accept a proposition along the lines of: “We’ll prevent cures for cancer, as long as Harvard doesn’t hire mediocre conservatives.” As my colleague David Bell has recently put it, if this proposition becomes acceptable, it will be the triumph of malignancy in more than one sense.

      Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Maryland senator meets Kilmar Ábrego García in El Salvador amid battle over US return

      by

      The Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen met in El Salvador with Kilmar Ábrego García, a man who was sent there by the Trump administration in March despite an immigration court order preventing his deportation.Van Hollen posted a photo of the meeting on X, saying he also called Ábrego García’s wife “to pass along his message of love”.The lawmaker did not provide an update on the status of Ábrego García, whose attorneys are fighting to force the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the US.It was not clear how the meeting was arranged, where they met or what will happen to Abrego Garcia. El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, posted images of the meeting minutes before Van Hollen shared his post, saying: “Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody.”Bukele continued mockingly: “Kilmar Ábrego García, miraculously risen from the ‘death camps’ and ‘torture’, now sipping margaritas with Sen Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!” The tweet ended with emojis of the US and El Salvador flags, with a handshake emoji between them.The meeting came in the hours after Van Hollen said he was denied entry into an high-security El Salvador prison while he was trying to check on Ábrego García’s wellbeing and attempting to push for his release.The Democratic senator said at a news conference in San Salvador that his car was stopped by soldiers at a checkpoint about 3km from the Terrorism Confinement Center, or Cecot, even as they let other cars go on.“They stopped us because they are under orders not to allow us to proceed,” Van Hollen said.Donald Trump and Bukele said this week that they have no basis to send Ábrego García back, even as the Trump administration has called his deportation a mistake and the US supreme court has called on the administration to facilitate his return.Trump officials have said that Ábrego García, a Salvadorian citizen who was living in Maryland, has ties to the MS-13 gang, but his attorneys say the government has provided no evidence of that and Ábrego García has never been charged with any crime related to such activity.Van Hollen’s trip has become a partisan flashpoint in the US as Democrats have seized on Ábrego García’s deportation as what they say is a cruel consequence of Trump’s disregard for the courts. Republicans have criticized Democrats for defending him and argued that his deportation is part of a larger effort to reduce crime.White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt held a news conference on Wednesday with the mother of a Maryland woman who was killed by a fugitive from El Salvador in 2023.Van Hollen told reporters on Wednesday that he met with Vice-President Félix Ulloa, who said his government could not return Ábrego García to the United States.“So today, I tried again to make contact with Mr Ábrego García by driving to the Cecot prison,” Van Hollen said on Thursday.Van Hollen said Ábrego García has not had any contact with his family or his lawyers. “There has been no ability to find out anything about his health and wellbeing,” Van Hollen said. He said Ábrego García should be able to have contact with his lawyers under international law.“We won’t give up until Kilmar has his due process rights respected,” Van Hollen said. He said there would be “many more” lawmakers coming to El Salvador.New Jersey senator Cory Booker is also considering a trip to El Salvador, as are some House Democrats.While Van Hollen was denied entry, several House Republicans have visited the notorious gang prison in support of the Trump administration’s efforts. Riley Moore, a West Virginia Republican, posted on Tuesday evening that he’d visited the prison where Ábrego García is being held. He did not mention Ábrego García but said the facility “houses the country’s most brutal criminals.”“I leave now even more determined to support President Trump’s efforts to secure our homeland,” Moore wrote on social media.Missouri Republican Jason Smith, chair of the House ways and means Committee, also visited the prison. He posted on X that “thanks to President Trump” the facility “now includes illegal immigrants who broke into our country and committed violent acts against Americans”.The fight over Ábrego García has also played out in contentious court filings, with repeated refusals from the government to tell a judge what it plans to do, if anything, to repatriate him.Since March, El Salvador has accepted from the US more than 200 Venezuelan immigrants – whom Trump administration officials have accused of gang activity and violent crimes – and placed them inside the country’s maximum-security gang prison just outside San Salvador. That prison is part of Bukele’s broader effort to crack down on the country’s powerful street gangs, which has put 84,000 people behind bars and made Bukele popular at home.Human rights groups have accused Bukele’s government of subjecting those jailed to “systematic use of torture and other mistreatment”. Officials there deny wrongdoing. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: president takes aim at Harvard, threatening tax-exempt status

      by

      The Trump administration has taken aim at Harvard, with President Trump calling for the university’s tax-exempt status to be revoked, despite the likely illegality of that threat.The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is reportedly planning to enact the president’s demand, a move that would cost Harvard millions of dollars each year.The move is part on an ongoing battle, and a significant escalation on Trump’s attack on Harvard and his aggressive, multi-pronged assault on higher education institutions. The White has urged Harvard to change its hiring, teaching and admissions practices to help fight antisemitism on campus.Harvard has said that it has taken steps to address the issue, and has received support from institutions such as Stanford University, and other schools united in support of academic freedom.Here are the key stories at a glance:IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status – reportsThe IRS is reportedly planning to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status in what would be a probably illegal move amid Donald Trump’s concerted attack on the independence of US institutions of higher education.Read the full storyÁbrego García’s wife rejects Trump officials’ ‘violent’ depictionsThe wife of Kilmar Ábrego García, the Maryland man unlawfully deported to a mega-prison in El Salvador, has strongly criticized the Trump administration’s attempt to smear his character, saying a temporary restraining order against him was “out of caution” and that “he is a loving partner and father” who is being denied justice.Read the full storyLuigi Mangione indicted on federal murder charge over healthcare CEO killingLuigi Mangione was indicted on Thursday on a federal murder charge in the killing of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel last year, a necessary step for prosecutors to seek the death penalty.The indictment returned by a grand jury in Manhattan federal court also charges Mangione with two counts of stalking and a firearms count.Read the full storyTrump condemns Fed chair over interest ratesDonald Trump early on Thursday condemned the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, for not lowering US interest rates, and expressed a wish for him to be gone from his role. The US president lambasted Powell as “always too late and wrong” in a post on his Truth Social platform.Read the full storySpaceX is frontrunner to build Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’Elon Musk’s SpaceX and two partners have emerged as frontrunners to win a crucial part of Donald Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile defense shield, six people familiar with the matter told Reuters.Read the full storyBooker to visit El Salvador in effort to return wrongly deported manCory Booker plans to travel to El Salvador, a source familiar with the New Jersey senator’s itinerary said, as Democrats seek to pressure the Trump administration to return a wrongly deported Maryland resident.Read the full storyMeloni says Trump to visit Rome after Washington talksGiorgia Meloni said Donald Trump had accepted her invitation for an official trip to Rome, as the pair met in Washington in an attempt by the Italian prime minister to bridge the gap between the EU and US amid trade tariff tensions.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      A Turkish PhD student detained after co-authoring an op-ed about Gaza has been denied bond by an immigration judge in Massachusetts.

      Trump’s fledgling media firm urged market regulators to investigate “suspicious activity” after a London-based hedge fund disclosed a vast bet against its stock.

      Two people were killed in a mass shooting at the Florida State University (FSU) campus in Tallahassee on Thursday, and six others were injured, police said. “It’s horrible that things like this take place,” the US president said.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 17 April 2025. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Giorgia Meloni whispers soothing words to Trump on ‘western nationalism’

      by

      She had been welcomed to the White House with open arms as few other foreign visitors had been since Donald Trump’s return, and Giorgia Meloni wanted to assure her host that – at least when it came to their political worldview – they spoke a common language.Italy’s prime minister, whose Brothers of Italy party has roots in neo-fascism, was keen to stress that she shared many things with the man who had just hailed her as a “friend” who “everybody loves … and respects”.Tariffs were a bit of problem. But between friends? Hey, we can work it out.Even if Italy boasted one of Europe’s biggest trade surpluses with the US, such disagreements could be bridged with recourse to the previously uncoined creed of “western nationalism”, argued Meloni, speaking in confident, lightly accented English, although she admitted she did not know if it was “the right word”.“I know that when I speak about west mainly, I don’t speak about geographical space. I speak about the civilization, and I want to make that civilization stronger,” she said, in terms that the president and his attendant cabinet members-cum-courtiers surely lapped up.“So I think even if we have some problems between the two shores of the Atlantic, it is the time that we try to sit down and find solutions.”After all, Meloni pointed out, they were on the same side when it came to one existential struggle, “the fight against the woke and ADI [sic] ideology that would like to erase our history.”The acronym was a bit confusing. Did she mean DEI? But no matter, her audience got the general gist.Meloni, 48, has been labelled “Europe’s Trump whisperer” – deemed capable of awakening the concealed angels of his nature that other Euro-leaders cannot reach. She has spent time at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida home, and was the only European leader invited to his inauguration in January.Here, in the Oval Office, the whispering was having a soothing effect. The president smiled indulgently, before going off on several “weaves” during which he attacked Joe Biden, the federal reserve chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting interest rates, Biden again, “activist judges” who were blocking his deportation agenda, then Powell once again.But it was standard Trump. The man who had publicly browbeaten Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, and barely tolerated Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer on their White House visits was the very picture of a gracious host.Even JD Vance – whose boorish interventions blew up the Zelenskyy visit and nearly did the same to Starmer’s – kept his trap shut, proof indeed that all was going swimmingly.Then disaster threatened.An Italian journalist insisted on asking the prime minister a question in her native Italian. Mama mia!Meloni looked disgusted. Weren’t they all supposed to be western nationalists here, defenders of the same civilization. Why emphasize differences?She played along reluctantly, her features relaxing slightly as she embarked on an extended discourse, but her body language betraying her as she lifted both feet off the ground, one crossed leg folding behind the other. Trump watched her intently all the while.When she finished, an American journalist tried to ask another question but Trump interjected: “No, wait, I want to hear what you said.”It was over to Meloni’s female interpreter, sitting nearby, who revealed: “Prime Minister Meloni was asked … what she thinks about the fact that President Trump holds Zelenskyy responsible for the war in Ukraine.”It was a discordant, yet key, moment – and the prime minister knew it. As the interpreter tried to continue, Meloni – perhaps sensing this was unsafe territory, not least because she has, for the most part, stuck with the western support for Ukraine that Trump is on the brink of abandoning – took over interpreting her own answer.She limited her explanation to vowing to raise Italy’s contributions to Nato, currently at below 1.5% – well below the 2% minimum agreed, and far short of the 5% Trump has lately demanded.Then it was the president’s turn. “I don’t hold Zelenskyy responsible,” he said, a retreat from his previous false accusations that Ukraine started the war. “But I’m not exactly thrilled with the fact that that war started. I’m not happy with anybody involved.”If anybody was to blame, he went on, it was Biden – the default scapegoat for every wrong – because, after all, everyone knew the war would never have started if Trump had still been president.No blame was attached to “President Putin”, the man who actually was responsible for starting the war. “Now I’m trying to get him to stop,” said Trump.For the unfortunate Zelenskyy, widely praised across the west for standing steadfast in defense of his country when it was under attack, there was little charity.“I’m not blaming him. But what I’m saying is that I don’t think he’s done the greatest job, OK? I’m not a big fan, I’m really not.”It was a telling moment of just how far the west’s center of gravity had shifted in the few short weeks since Trump’s return to power. And an uncomfortable one, even for Meloni.Then the conversation moved on to to the common ground of combatting migration – and it was back to the whispering again. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration moves to narrow protections for endangered species

      by

      The Trump administration is planning to narrow protections for endangered species, in a move that environmentalists say would accelerate extinction by opening up critical habitats for development, logging, mining and other uses.The proposal is the latest deregulatory effort by Donald Trump, who has made it a priority to dismantle endangered species protections as part of a broader quest to boost energy extraction and industrial access, even in the US’s most sensitive and vulnerable natural areas.The new proposal from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service offers a new interpretation of the of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, which would strike habitat destruction from regulations.At issue is a long-standing definition of two terms in the Endangered Species Act: “harm” and “take”. “Harm” has meant altering or destroying the places those species live. “Take”, meanwhile, is a term used in regulations to denote any actions that include hunting, capturing, wounding or killing a protected species, which has included altering or destroying the places those species live.The US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service said in a proposed rule, issued on Wednesday, that habitat modification and destruction should not be considered “harm” because it is not the same as intentionally targeting a species, which is defined as “take”.“The existing regulatory definition of ‘harm,’ which includes habitat modification, runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term ‘take,’” the proposal says.Challenges to the legalese could enable a much more limited application of the regulations, which would free industry to continue or begin activities that would impact habitat.But habitat loss is considered the strongest driver of species loss. Striking the word or changing these definitions could cause catastrophic damage to species already close to the brink.“If [you] say harm doesn’t mean significant habitat degradation or modification, then it really leaves endangered species out in the cold,” Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity said, adding that the proposal “cuts the heart out of the Endangered Species Act”.Environmentalists argue that the definition of “take” has always included actions that harm species, and the definition of “harm” has been upheld by the US supreme court.Spotted owls and Florida panthers both are protected because the current rule forbids habitat destruction, Greenwald said. The legislation has helped safeguard more than 1,700 species and their habitats, preventing 99% of those listed from going extinct, most famously the bald eagle.But if the new rule is adopted, someone who logs in a forest or builds a development would be unimpeded as long as they could say they didn’t intend to harm an endangered species.The proposed rule was expected to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, kicking off a 30-day public comment period. Environmental groups are already planning to challenge the rule in court if it’s adopted. Questions remain about whether the Trump administration is legally able to repeal a rule already upheld by the supreme court.The proposal “threatens a half-century of progress in protecting and restoring endangered species”, said Drew Caputo, an attorney at Earthjustice. He added that the law currently “recognizes the common-sense concept that destroying a forest, beach, river, or wetland that a species relies on for survival constitutes harm to that species”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt’s not the first attempt by the administration to undermine protections. One of Trump’s first executive orders after returning to the White House in January, declared a national energy emergency even amid a record glut of oil and gas drilling, and calls for the endangered species committee, a group nicknamed the “God squad”, to meet at least quarterly.This committee, which would be led by US interior secretary Doug Burgum, five other senior officials from different government agencies and a representative from an affected state, has rarely been used but has the power to override the Endangered Species Act even if it results in the extinction of a species, hence its existential nickname.Changing the rule could prove an easier strategy to override protections. It could also threaten conservation areas kept safe because of the species that call them home.The issue is of particular concern in Hawaii. The islands have more endangered species than any other state – 40% of the nation’s federally listed threatened and endangered species – even though Hawaii has less than 1% of the land area of the US, according to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.Maxx Philips, Hawaii and Pacific Islands director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said removing these safeguards will accelerate Hawaii’s extinction crisis and erode the biological and cultural heritage of the islands.She pointed to the example of tiny native bees that forage on and pollinate coastal dune plants. Very little oceanfront property remains undeveloped and what is left tends to be fragmented pockets. Other listed species living on the shoreline – like green sea turtles – could also lose their homes if protections are removed.“Habitat is life, right?” she said. “And without it, there is no recovery and without recovery, there is only extinction.”Oliver Milman and the Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      What is a ‘criminal’ immigrant? The word is an American rhetorical trap | Jonathan Ben-Menachem

      by

      Last month, the Trump administration flew 238 Venezuelan immigrants to a brutal prison in El Salvador. Federal officials alleged that the detainees were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, calling them “heinous monsters” ,“criminal aliens”, “the worst of the worst”. The federal government has also revoked visas for a thousand international students over their alleged participation in protests against Israel’s genocide in Palestine. Some were abducted, like Mahmoud Khalil, who has spent more than a month incarcerated in one of the worst jails in the US. Officials alleged that Mahmoud “sided with terrorists … who have killed innocent men, women, and children”.Media reports quickly revealed that the Trump administration is lying about “innocent” people to justify abducting them. But this raises a more important question: if Trump’s victims weren’t “innocent”, does that make them disposable? I worry that emphasizing the innocence of victims creates a rhetorical trap. It’s like carefully digging a pit that the fascists can shove us into.Instead, we should interrogate the fact that the Trump administration chose to target “gang members” and “terrorist supporters” in the first step of its ethnic cleansing project. Criminals and terrorists are the bogeymen animating bipartisan racism against Black, Latino and Arab people, and Trump is weaponizing these myths because many liberals have already written them off as less than human. The political context that enabled US residents to be shipped to El Salvador’s Cecot facility is a bipartisan project more than 50 years in the making, largely unquestioned by people who are rightfully horrified by recent escalations.Allegations of criminality have long been an effective pretext for anti-Black violence in the US – this is the “war on crime”. So long as there are “criminals” to fight, vicious police brutality becomes politically palatable. This is true in blue and red states alike. The gang member is the latest symbol used to dehumanize Black and Latino people, replacing the “superpredator”. In practice, police and prosecutors invoke the specter of monstrous gangs to continue targeting entire neighborhoods while evading allegations of explicit discrimination.You can be added to a gang database because of your tattoos, the color of the clothing you wear or even for using certain emojis on social media. These lists are riddled with errors, sometimes naming toddlers and elders. More commonly, gang databases index the thousands of people – often children – swept up by police because of where they live or whom they socialize with. The consequences of gang policing are devastating: it can lead to federal prosecution or potential deportation, not to mention a lifetime of state harassment.Gang membership isn’t the only tool the Trump administration can use to portray its victims as guilty. When the “war on crime” morphed into the “war on terror”, Arab and Muslim residents suffered from discriminatory surveillance and repression – the “terrorist” category matches the “gang member” category in that it justifies racist dragnet policing practices. The “counter-terrorism” net has already widened, targeting Stop Cop City activists in Atlanta. This problem is not limited to Republicans – liberal politicians and university stakeholders laid the groundwork for Trump’s deportation efforts. Last year, the Anti-Defamation League’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, called student Palestine activists proxies for Iran, and New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams, smeared us as terrorist supporters to justify an incredibly violent police raid.The widening net of who is considered a criminal not only chills dissent among immigrants and activists. It further dehumanizes and renders disposable people who have genuinely committed harm.We must defend the rights of people who do have criminal records. No one deserves to be whisked away to a brutal prison that deprives them of basic human rights – no matter if it’s in El Salvador, Louisiana, California, Pennsylvania or New York. Criminal records and bona fide gang membership don’t turn human beings into monsters. If Trump goes through with his plan of sending citizens to El Salvador, he could initially target people convicted of heinous crimes. This would allow federal officials to ask: “Why do liberals care about pedophiles and murderers?”We should be prepared to defend the basic rights of all of Trump’s targets with our full strength. If a single person becomes disposable, anyone could become the next target. Last week, Trump said he “loved” the idea of sending American “criminals” to El Salvador, and law professors are sounding the alarm about citizen student activists being subjected to terrorism prosecutions. First it will be the “migrant gang member” or “terrorist on a student visa” sent to Cecot. Next it will be the domestic gang member and the terrorist-supporting citizen. Eventually, perhaps any political opponent could be construed as a criminal-terrorist.Trump may not even need to rely on the justice department to criminalize his enemies – dozens of local cops joined the 6 January 2021 putsch at the US Capitol, and local prosecutors have eagerly charged student activists with felonies. This is another reason to avoid the innocence trap: many police love Trump, and law enforcement can very easily make their adversaries seem like criminals.The innocence trap is dangerous because allegations of criminality have always been deployed to justify state violence. If we only defend the “innocent”, the fascists will argue that their victim “was no angel”. An anti-fascist rhetoric that carves out exceptions for imperfect victims is a gift to our opponents.

      Jonathan Ben-Menachem is a PhD candidate in sociology at Columbia University, where he researches the politics of criminalization More