US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
General Trump Banner.png

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My bet is most of these protests flop but that won't stop the drones and MSM from screaming at the top of their lungs how strong and powerful and massive these protest were.
From my brief perusal of Twitter, the only protests that had any significant attendance were the ones in DC and in blue megacities like NYC, Chicago, and Boston. Every other city had very few people show up.
 
She went from representing Freedom, Liberty, American expansion and excellence to being shown giving protection to jews and chinese and blacks from the evil tyranny of the racist southern business heads who wanted to keep them building railroads.

What Southern railroads?

Will they try a soft coup? For sure but I think the nu-Left lacks the balls to do an all out war. Anti-fags only fight in safe zones, can you imagine the average bug-hiver soy boy picking up a weapon to fight? Look at this lame "fuck Musk" movement, it's sad and ridiculous and well..pathetic. A bunch of weak ass soy boys hitting cars when their owners a away and tossing firebombs in the middle of the night at unguarded targets and still getting caught anyway. This is the people you fear?

You cannot pull off a civil war unless you have a disaffected chunk of military-trained young men to fight it and leadership to tell them where to go. Let's just say, hypothetically, that several movers and shakers on the left decided it was Happening Time. California and a number of other states decide to secede. They could get quite a few flag officers to join them, maybe even some who aren't completely incompetent, like Mark Milley.

But where are they going to get trigger-pullers? The foaming-at-the-mouth lefties in the Army, the kind who'd be willing to kill somebody for trannies and niggers, are POGs. The ones you actually have to be scared of are the ones who are loyal to America.
 
More Than 500 Law Firms Back Perkins Coie in Fight With Trump
The New York Times (archive.ph)
By Ben Protess
2025-04-04 21:22:48GMT

The firms signed a legal brief supporting Perkins Coie, calling the president’s actions a threat “to the rule of law.” The largest firms declined to sign.
More than 500 law firms on Friday threw their support behind some of their embattled peers, declaring that President Trump’s recent crackdown on the law firm industry poses “a grave threat to our system of constitutional governance and to the rule of law itself.”

The firms, 504 in all, signed a so-called friend of the court brief that was filed on behalf of Perkins Coie, the first firm to receive an executive order restricting its business.

Perkins Coie sued the Trump administration, and a judge has temporarily blocked the president’s order, which jeopardized its ability to represent government contractors and limited its access to federal buildings. While the judge weighs whether to permanently block the order, a wide-ranging effort has been underway to collect signatures for the brief.

The New York Times reported this week that none of the nation’s top 10 revenue-generating firms signed the brief before a soft deadline on Tuesday, and that remained the case on Friday. In fact, not a single top 20 firm by revenue, as ranked by American Lawyer, signed, including Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins or Gibson Dunn.

Yet in recent days, a few large firms did add their signatures, including Covington & Burling, No. 28 in American Lawyer’s rankings; and Arnold & Porter, No. 47. Two other big firms that received executive orders and are also challenging them in court, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, also signed. All told, nearly 10 firms in the top 100 signed the brief.

Other friend of the court briefs were also filed in support of Perkins Coie, including one signed by both the A.C.L.U. and the Cato Institute, the Washington-based libertarian think tank.

In a statement, Perkins Coie said it was “grateful for the support” in its “challenge to the unconstitutional executive order and the threat it poses to the rule of law.”

The brief filed by the law firms similarly argued that Mr. Trump’s orders ran afoul of the Constitution, violating the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

“The judiciary should act with resolve — now — to ensure that this abuse of executive power ceases,” said the brief, which was drafted by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., a solicitor general during President Barack Obama’s administration. “Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create.”

Mr. Verrilli is now a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson, a firm that is well-known but not among the nation’s top revenue generators.

Law firm size and ranking were not the only factors in signing. Geography also appeared to play a determining role: Signatures came from top firms in Washington and Chicago, but not New York.

Sullivan & Cromwell did not sign, nor did Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which recently struck a deal with Mr. Trump to avoid an executive order. Paul Weiss, which was the target of an executive order before it reached a deal of its own, did not sign either.

The big New York firms that withheld their signatures were not necessarily opposed, according to people with knowledge of the matter. They quietly support the principle of it, but are concerned that signing the document would draw Mr. Trump’s ire and cost them clients, or that signing would not meaningfully help Perkins Coie.

Some firms that did not sign are nonetheless supporting firms that Mr. Trump targeted. Williams & Connolly is representing Perkins Coie, while Cooley is representing Jenner & Block, another firm that chose to fight Mr. Trump’s order in court. WilmerHale is represented by a prominent conservative litigator, Paul Clement.

In all three cases, judges have temporarily blocked the key elements of the president’s orders.

In each of those cases, firms that received an executive order had ties to the investigation into Russia’s support for Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Perkins Coie was involved in a dossier compiled during the 2016 campaign about Mr. Trump’s potential ties to Russia. WilmerHale once employed Robert Mueller III, the former F.B.I. director who served as the special counsel leading that investigation. And Jenner & Block was home to a top prosecutor who worked with Mr. Mueller.

Other firms chose to cave to Mr. Trump’s demands before being hit with an executive order. Over the last week, Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Milbank both cut deals promising to dedicate $100 million of pro bono work to causes that Mr. Trump supports.

While the firms avoided protracted battles with Mr. Trump, the deals have drawn widespread condemnation in the legal community. And they appeared to embolden Mr. Trump, who has hinted that additional law firms are in his sights.

Mr. Verrilli’s brief, which was co-written by Nathan P. Eimer, a Chicago litigator, warned about the perils of the executive orders and called on judges to intervene.

“Unless the judiciary acts decisively now, what was once beyond the pale will in short order become a stark reality,” the brief said. “Corporations and individuals alike will risk losing their right to be represented by the law firms of their choice and a profound chill will be cast over the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress.”
Hundreds of law firms back Perkins Coie in fight against Trump sanctions
The Washington Post (archive.ph)
By Mark Berman
2025-04-05 01:56:40GMT

But the largest U.S. firms did not join a court filing supporting Perkins Coie and denouncing the president’s orders targeting law firms.
More than 500 law firms on Friday denounced President Donald Trump’s campaign to punish individual firms, calling his actions abuses of power that endanger the rule of law.

The firms said in a court filing that Trump’s orders are potentially devastating for any firm he targets and appear intended to intimidate others so that they do not challenge his administration. The filing was not signed by any of the 20 largest firms nationwide, as measured by revenue.

“Whatever short-term advantage an administration may gain from exercising power in this way, the rule of law cannot long endure in the climate of fear that such actions create,” the group objecting to Trump’s orders wrote in the filing.

Trump has issued orders castigating several prominent law firms, citing their connections to some of his perceived foes and directing that they face significant consequences. The punishments have included losing government contracts and being blocked from federal buildings or interacting with government employees, which firms describe as catastrophic for their operations.

His orders have caused a sharp divide within the legal community, with firms and attorneys split on whether to fight.

Some firms have reached deals with the Trump administration to avoid punishment, agreeing in some cases to provide up to $100 million in pro bono work for causes the president supports. Three firms targeted by Trump — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — instead sued to fight the orders, and federal judges at least temporarily blocked many of the penalties they faced.

The court filing submitted Friday was signed by hundreds of firms backing Perkins Coie in its lawsuit. The filing — known as an amicus, or friend of the court, brief — appeared to be a show of support from across the legal profession, with signatures from large firms with hundreds of employees as well as smaller, boutique operations. Three firms targeted by Trump — WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Covington & Burling — were among those that signed.

“We are grateful for the support of over 500 law firms, as well as numerous other amici, in our challenge to the unconstitutional Executive Order and the threat it poses to the rule of law,” Perkins Coie said in a statement.

It was not immediately clear whether the largest firms that did not sign had all been contacted about the filing or offered a chance to sign on before it was submitted. The Washington Post contacted all 20 firms before the brief was submitted and again after it was filed. Most firms did not immediately respond to either query.

Senior partners from Keker, Van Nest & Peters publicly said days earlier that they had signed on to it and urged big firms to follow their lead.

Trump began targeting firms in February, taking aim at several that employed people who had investigated him or had other ties to his foes. He assailed Perkins Coie for representing Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 presidential race, and punished Covington & Burling for its representation of Jack Smith, the former special counsel who oversaw federal indictments against Trump.

In the brief, the firms backing Perkins Coie said Trump’s orders “seek to cow every other firm, large and small, into submission.” The firms said the orders posed a “looming threat” that any attorney or firm challenging the administration could face “the risk of devastating retaliation.” Challenging government overreach is a core part of what lawyers and law firms do, they added, something that invariably brings them into conflict with the government.

The firms also expressed “particularly acute concern” about the portions of Trump’s executive orders criticizing firms for their pro bono work, saying attorneys have to be able to advocate for all clients, “large and small, rich and poor.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the filing Friday.

Trump’s order said Perkins Coie carried out “dishonest and dangerous activity.” In its lawsuit fighting the order, the firm called it “an affront to the Constitution” and said Trump’s actions were aimed at bullying those who run afoul of the administration. The firm also said Trump’s actions quickly cost it clients and revenue.

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell agreed on March 12 to temporarily block much of Trump’s order, saying, “It sends little chills down my spine.”

The Justice Department has said in court filings that Trump had issued “a straightforward — and straightforwardly legal — Executive Order,” all within the bounds of his power, and it urged Howell to dismiss Perkins Coie’s case.

The Justice Department also unsuccessfully sought to have Howell removed from the case, accusing her of being “insufficiently impartial.” She rejected the request.

Other groups and individuals have also submitted briefs supporting Perkins Coie. One brief, signed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Cato Institute, said Trump’s actions violated the First Amendment and, if left unchecked, could have dire consequences for Americans’ abilities to obtain legal representation and speak freely.

Another filing was submitted by former presidents of the D.C. Bar, an association that handles discipline for lawyers licensed in the District. The filing called Trump’s actions “not merely an attack on a single law firm (or small handful of major firms) but an assault on the vital underpinnings of the American legal process itself.”

Patrick McGlone, one of the former D.C. Bar presidents who signed the brief, said he was appalled by Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie.

“Our judges rely on lawyers being able to capably and zealously represent their clients,” McGlone said in an interview. “The potential for interference with the rule of law is pretty vast if this kind of conduct isn’t curtailed, and I’m certainly hopeful that it will be.”
James Carville compares law firms, powerful groups cooperating with Trump to Nazi collaborators
FOX News (archive.ph)
By Gabriel Hays
2025-04-05 12:23:21GMT
Democratic strategist James Carville warned on Friday that those who cooperate with President Donald Trump’s administration may be treated the way Nazi collaborators were at the end of World War II.

The former Bill Clinton adviser made the comparison during a recent segment of his "Politicon" podcast, noting that the humiliating treatment that the Europeans who helped Hitler’s forces faced at the end of the war may be instructive as a historical comparison. Carville singled out influential Americans and institutions aiding the Trump administration.

"I'm not saying that these people should be placed in pajamas and have their head shaved, marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and spit on. I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that that did happen," Carville said.

Speculating about the future, he wondered, "Do you know… what the country is going to feel toward collaborators with this regime?"

The strategist began by railing against Trump’s agenda, calling it a "nightmare" and hoping for its end. He called Trump officials "anti-patriotic," "a bunch of grifters," and went on to tar and feather the law firms and corporations that have been cooperating with the administration.

The Trump administration has applied pressure on multiple major law firms allegedly linked to the Democratic Party and anti-Trump causes. Trump signed an executive order last month that called for the employees of the Perkins Coie law firm to be stripped of their security clearances and banned from accessing government buildings. It also called for the termination of the firm's existing contracts with government clients.

While Perkins Coie has sued Trump over the executive order, other firms have sought to strike deals with Trump over the pressure. New York ‘s Paul Weiss firm met with the president in March and agreed to pledging $40 million worth of legal work to support administration causes to be spared from executive penalty, the AP reported.

Carville viewed such efforts to work with Trump as capitulation to his agenda.

"How disgraced must these law firms feel now? How disgraced must these companies that are sucking up to him – that are giving him tens of millions of dollars for ‘access.’ Do you know what’s going to happen? Do you know how this ends," he asked, before making his historical comparison.

"Do you know… what the country is going to feel towards collaborators with this regime? Maybe you need to go in history and see what happened in August of 1944 after Paris was liberated. They didn't take very kindly to the collaborators. No. It was not a very pretty sight in the streets of Paris."

Carville continued, clarifying that he isn’t endorsing this treatment but noting it did happen and it could happen to Trump cooperators, who, he added, have betrayed America.

"But I’m saying that that did happen. And I’m saying that these people betrayed the French nation in the same way that I think that these law firms and these giant corporate conglomerates are betraying the United States," he declared, though he added he doesn’t know what their "comeuppance" should be and advised people not to assault anyone.

Carville called Amazon founder Jeff Bezos a "collaborator" last month, after the business mogul pledged to work with the Trump administration. "This guy's not going to be remembered as the greatest retailer who ever lived, of which he is," Carville said. "He's going to be remembered as a collaborator. And he will never ever wash that stench off of him."
 
You know what's super funny about Eurofaggots? They go on and on and on about how much they hate America and how glad they are to be European but if you ask the average Frenchman or Germanfag or whatever what defines them or what they're proud of all they talk about is how much they love BLM/George Floyd/troons/feminism ect.

They never talk about anything from their own cultures. Everything they define themselves by is a social or political movement exported from the U.S
 
Last edited:
Trump needs to explain his national security firings
The Washington Post (archive.ph)
By The Editorial Board
2025-04-05 22:40:17GMT

If they were done on the advice of a conspiracy theorist, voters have reason to worry.
wapo01.jpg
Laura Loomer shows her support for Donald Trump outside a campaign event for Ron DeSantis in October 2023. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

If not for President Donald Trump’s self-inflicted wounds from the tariffs he unveiled on Wednesday, the biggest White House story this past week might have been his purge of six National Security Council staffers and the top two officials at the National Security Agency.

The ax fell on Thursday, a day after Trump met with far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer. In the Oval Office, she urged the president to fire the staffers on the dubious grounds that they were insufficiently loyal. Trump acknowledged that Loomer gives him personnel advice — and “sometimes I listen to those recommendations” — but denied doing so in this case. Loomer, however, claimed credit.

Trump says he wants to be known as the most transparent president in U.S. history. In that case, he should explain to Americans why so many political appointees whom he placed in critical security jobs only three months ago needed to be fired so soon. Loomer suggested there had been a “vetting failure.”

If so, it would cast doubt on the competence of Sergio Gor, the director of the presidential office of personnel, who joined Trump’s roughly 30-minute meeting with Loomer, along with Vice President JD Vance and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. If Trump agrees with Loomer’s explanation, then what changes will he institute to prevent such hiring mistakes from being repeated? Americans have a right to know. Obviously, this is not an optimal way to effectively lead a government amid so much global chaos.

Loomer does not seem to be a particularly trustworthy adviser to the president. She has amplified a conspiracy theory on social media claiming that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were an inside job. She has described her beliefs as “pro-white nationalism.” During the Republican presidential primary, she falsely accused Casey DeSantis, wife of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, of faking her breast cancer. In 2023, Trump moved to give her a role on his campaign but backed off after some of his most loyal supporters, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), protested.

National security adviser Michael Waltz also joined the Oval Office meeting with Trump and Loomer toward its end, but he has little power to protect his employees, having been weakened by his blunder last month, when he accidentally added a magazine editor to a high-level Signal chat.

Flying to a golf tournament in Florida on Thursday, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he’s “always going to let go of people — people we don’t like, or people that take advantage of, or people that may have loyalties to someone else.” But this doesn’t explain his rationale for getting rid of the NSC officials — each of whom appears to have a solid record in government:

David Feith, a former Wall Street Journal editorial writer who served in the State Department during Trump’s first term, was a senior director for technology and national security working on export controls. Thomas Boodry, Waltz’s legislative director during his last term in the House and a former Senate aide to Marco Rubio, was senior director for legislative affairs. Brian Walsh, another former Rubio employee who served as staff director on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a director for intelligence on the NSC.

Trump at least resisted Loomer’s push to fire the principal deputy national security adviser, Alex Wong, whose wife Loomer has disparaged for working as a career Justice Department lawyer during the Biden, Obama and first Trump administrations.

Loomer claims that she also successfully prodded Trump to fire Gen. Timothy Haugh as director of both the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command because he got those jobs in 2023 when Gen. Mark A. Milley, now retired, was chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Virginia), the vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, noted that Haugh has served in uniform with honor and distinction for more than 30 years. The senator wondered, in a statement: “At a time when the United States is facing unprecedented cyberthreats, as the Salt Typhoon cyberattack from China has so clearly underscored, how does firing him make Americans any safer?” Trump needs to answer this question.
 
AI-modified JD Vance portrait makes an appearance at the pro-Palestine protest in DC.

“Izwael first” a chubby Vance says on the poster, while wielding a lollipop.

View attachment 7181681
I can't wait till we get past the moral fagging over AI art. People clutch their pearls over it but they're fine using it when it's to make fun of someone they hate.

Also, did Vance ever do anything weird? First they called him "weird", then they accuse him of fucking couches, now the AI art. Has he actually done anything malevolent or they just hope something sticks? People say they're afraid of a Vance presidency but he's one of the few I've seen in Trump's den of snakes who's willing to speak his mind against Trump's policy.
 
Judge McConnell, the dude whose daughter works at many Lefty NGO's, has written a order demanding that the Trump Admin start paying out the FEMA contracts, including the ones to the so named sanctuary cities immediately.

This dude issued a TRO (shock!!) to release the funds to the states and cities immediately and end any funding pauses back on March 6th due to Trump's executive orders.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. ruled that the Trump administration must release hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds to 22 Democratic states and Washington, D.C. He found that the administration violated a court order by withholding the grant money.

"These acts of disobedience on behalf of the Trump Administration by delaying the processing of the FEMA funds for these (blue states) borders on open contempt of this courts orders and risks facing charges unless the Trump Administration immediately releases these FEMA funds"


Trump's DOJ stated they are working though the process of releasing the funds through the related process as establish by law and are moving as quickly as possible to obey the court orders but the "manual review process" takes time to fully complete. IE: The judge is pissed the money tap wasn't immediately turned back on when he said to and is angry that Trump's FEMA is dragging their feet by sticking to the letter of the law and not what the judge told them to do so now he's threatening them unless they comply now now NOW!

"This court reaffirms that the injunction on Noem from any pauses, delays, freezes, blocks, suspensions or cancellations in regards to the releasing of these FEMA grants to the defendants (the blue states) or any other similar orders or directives from the Trump Administration".

So once again a mid level judge is countermanding directives issued by the PoTUS and has even order that the manual review of grants is not allowed, FEMA must just hand over the hundreds of million of dollars now. Without review or delay just fork over the money as told within 48 hours (so Monday April 7th) or face contempt charges.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5232494-judge-fema-grants-trump-blue-states/

BTW: in case people forgot this is the judge who called Trump a Dictator and Tyrant and donated 750K to the DNC in 2020 and is a director of a NGO whom will directly benefit from the FEMA money being released. But the RI appeals court ruled that of course there was no conflict of interest here.
 
Last edited:
Today I saw a protest where is was just some 60 year old lady with a sign. How sad the state the Libs have become.
I just got the mental image of one of those "In the aaaarms of an angel" fundraising commericals for little starving brown kids in africa (money goes to warlords and leftist causes) or homeless pet doggos and cats...

... Only it's donating to make up for USAID slush and grift being cut to fund poor innocent antifa rent-a-mobs.

"Little Todd here hasn't been able to assault any black people and claim he was doing it to fight racism ALL year because the mean orange man stole his tax funded paycheck. Tyrone here hasn't been able to loot a walmart in days! And with the funding cut off Karen and Shaniqua have to moderate reddit for free. But with a monthly donation of just $10 dollars you can have him trying to set fire to apartment buildings with children in them or federal courthouses with people inside this evening. As a bonus, your tax dollars will be used to rebuild all the damage they cause in the name of street justice.

Won't you call now?"
 
Whenever Europeans think of America they think that
1: our country is a fraction of the size it actually is
2: that every square inch of America is picrel
View attachment 7181074
It's fine that they're ignorant. We often judge European countries by how much of a shit hole some of their cities are, but their smug elitism is starting to extend past ignorance and heading towards completely delusional territory
Even that is like a mile of land off a highway just framed to look like it's super compact and consumerist. Europeans are fucking retarded and I refuse to acknowledge them as people.
 
The Cardboard-Carrying Opposition Arrives
The Atlantic (archive.ph)
By Elaine Godfrey
2025-04-05 23:12:55GMT
r01.jpg
Caroline Gutman for The Atlantic

The opposition arrived in a flurry of painted cardboard.

Until this week, the 11th of Donald Trump’s second presidency, the resistance has not exactly been upper-case R. Any show of dissent by Democratic leadership has been virtually nonexistent, and protests against Trump’s policies have been small and sporadic. Citizen frustration with the new administration has registered nationally as little more than a distant rumble.

Today’s “Hands Off” protest, organized by a coalition of left-wing groups, was an attempt to raise the volume.

People carted their megaphones and rainbow flags to more than 1,200 sites across the country today—in D.C., of course, but also in Helena, Montana; Daytona Beach, Florida; and Dubuque, Iowa. The events spanned all 50 states, the organizers said, plus a few more exotic locales, such as Guadalajara, Lisbon, and Paris. Washington had expected to draw about 10,000 protesters; in the end, several times that showed up.

In interviews with some of those gathered today on the National Mall, demonstrators told me that they were under no illusion that Trump or Elon Musk would be much swayed by their anger or creative signage. The point, they said, was to show the rest of America that the opposition exists—and is widespread. “This is not for them,” Gina King, a retired teacher from New York City, told me. “This is for us.”

r02.jpg
Caroline Gutman for The Atlantic

The first mass protest of this administration was well timed. The week began with Cory Booker’s record-breaking 25-hour tirade against Trump from the Senate floor. The monologue accomplished nothing tangible—though it threw Booker’s Oura-ring readings out of whack—but it was a welcome stunt for voters who have been craving louder public rage against the administration’s actions. (What says outrage more than a man willing to hold it for 25 hours?) Then, on Tuesday night, Democrats in Wisconsin won the first electoral test of Trump’s second presidency, by defeating a state-supreme-court candidate backed by Trump and $20 million from Musk. Also on Tuesday, one of the largest mass layoffs of federal workers to date began, when employees at the CDC and the FDA were dismissed. Finally, on Thursday, Trump’s tariffs sent Americans’ retirement savings plunging, triggered manufacturer layoffs, and forced CNBC to bring its bear-market graphic out of hibernation.

King, the retired teacher, carried a sign thanking Booker and Wisconsinites for their efforts in the fight against Trump. She protested the president during the Women’s March in early 2017, but this political moment is different, she told me. “It feels more desperate,” she said. “We should all be standing in front of the Supreme Court every day, in front of the National Institutes of Health every day.”

Half a dozen federal employees spoke with me at the protest, but none wanted to share their full name for fear of retribution from the Trump administration. “I’m here because I feel powerless,” said a man named Edward, who had just been forced out of his longtime government job. He carried a sign mocking the “five bullet points” that federal employees are now required to submit weekly to Musk’s DOGE.

“In the original Women’s March, we were very concerned with women’s rights, but now he’s touching all areas,” Tracie, an employee in the Department of Veterans Affairs, told me. She was willing to risk her job to show up at the protest, together with her daughter and granddaughter, she told me, because she wants America to see her anger. “The administration is completely discounting us. They’re saying we’re bought, we’re paid for, we’re bused in.” But the opposition to Trump is real, she said. “We are out here.”

r03.jpg
Caroline Gutman for The Atlantic

On the Mall, it was difficult to pinpoint a chief complaint or singular demand. Hands off what, exactly? I asked.

There were so many things to be furious about. No single piece of cardstock could contain it all. People carried posters about the administration’s deportation of immigrants and dissident students; Laura Loomer’s Oval Office influence; Musk’s taking a chain saw to the federal government; the return of preventable diseases; the technological ineptitude of Trump’s defense officials; and attacks on abortion rights.

Many of those I spoke with cited creeping fascism. “There’s been a total disregard of habeas corpus,” Larry Bostian, a retiree from Silver Spring, Maryland, told me. “Democracy is in a death spiral.” Paul Singleton, an Air Force veteran from Stafford, Virginia, agreed. “I used to wonder, how did Hitler do what he did?” he said. “When Trump got into office and started appointing all these people, I stopped.”

Given the stakes, people wanted to know, where was Democratic Party leadership? Katrin Hinrichsen, a retired computer engineer from Connecticut, had brought a few signage options, including one that read Time to CHUCK Schumer. “I want some effective leadership of the Democratic minority,” she told me.

A few Democratic lawmakers addressed the rally in D.C., including Representatives Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. They were speaking on a stage somewhere amid the dense crowd gathered at the base of the Washington Monument. But most people couldn’t hear them; some had no idea there was a stage at all. Instead, parts of the rally devolved into a kind of hippie picnic, where sign carriers chatted in circles or plopped on the grass to eat sandwiches. One woman handed out nuts and dried fruit: “Cashews, anyone?” Another laughed with her friends—“The last time I felt safe in a crowd this big was at a Taylor Swift concert!”

r04.jpg
Caroline Gutman for The Atlantic

“We’ve been scattered; we’ve been demoralized,” Bostian, the retiree from Silver Spring, told me, looking at the sea of people around him. “But this is awesome.”

The 2017 Women’s March connected protesters who kept in touch, established “Resistance” groups in their hometowns, and eventually helped elect a wave of new Democrats during the 2018 midterms. Today’s protesters think that they can do it again. They just need the rest of America to hear them.

r05.jpg
Caroline Gutman for The Atlantic
A Letter to Columbia
Columbia Spectator (archive.ph)
By Mahmoud Khalil
2025-04-05 01:52:20GMT
columbia01.jpg
By Gabriella Gregor Splaver / Columbia Daily Spectator

Editor's Note: This op-ed was dictated by Mahmoud Khalil, SIPA
’24. Spectator verified this with his Attorney Amy Greer and conducted its regular editing process. Khalil is currently detained at the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center.

To Columbia—an institution that laid the groundwork for my abduction—and to its student body, who must not abdicate their responsibility to resist repression,

Since my abduction on March 8, the intimidation and kidnapping of international students who stand for Palestine has only accelerated. On March 9, Yunseo Chung had to file a lawsuit and eventually seek a court order barring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from detaining her for her protest activity. On March 11, Ranjani Srinivasan chose to cross the border to Canada upon the belief that this university was ready to hand her over to ICE. Beyond the gates of Columbia, Leqaa Kordia, Dr. Badar Khan Suri, and Rümeysa Öztürk have all been snatched by the state. The situation is oddly reminiscent of when I fled the brutality of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria and sought refuge in Lebanon.

The logic used by the federal government to target myself and my peers is a direct extension of Columbia’s repression playbook concerning Palestine.

In the 18 months since the genocidal campaign in Gaza began, Columbia has not only refused to acknowledge the lives of Palestinians sacrificed for Zionist settler colonialism, but it has actively reproduced the language used to justify this killing. You received countless emails from former University President Minouche Shafik, former interim University President Katrina Armstrong, and the deans of your schools that manufactured public hysteria about antisemitism without once mentioning the tens of thousands of Palestinians murdered under bombs made of your dollars.

Columbia has suppressed student dissent under the auspices of combating antisemitism. Last year, Columbia turned over student disciplinary records to Congress and created the Task Force on Antisemitism that broadly categorized anti-Israel sentiment as hate speech to condemn protests. Around the beginning of Armstrong’s tenure, Columbia created the Office of Institutional Equity, providing senior administration members with unilateral control over the “review and arbitration of all reports of discrimination and discriminatory harassment at Columbia,” effectively diminishing the power of the University Judicial Board, an appointed panel of students, faculty, and staff, whose role it is to hear “all charges of violations of” the Rules of University Conduct. Supposedly responsible for overseeing cases of Title VI, VII, and IX violations, OIE instead became a mechanism to persecute pro-Palestinian students with no due process. Even the contents of this letter, absurdly, could be presented as sufficient to be reported to OIE.

The movement for Palestinian freedom and justice at Columbia and across the United States has always centered community care. Hundreds of you joined the encampment last spring. Since then, many of you have stayed involved in the movement. Together, you organized mutual aid for families in Gaza through bake sales and funding campaigns. You created study spaces, reading circles, and cross-movement solidarity. This movement has always been grassroots. It was led by students—many younger than me—who risked their careers, their degrees, and their futures to demand divestment. Anyone who has truly engaged with the movement knows that claims that its goals and purpose are rooted in antisemitism are mere fabrication.

In a cruel irony, the students who publicize manufactured safety concerns regarding antisemitism are the same ones who repeatedly show up at your events looking for provocation, leaving only disappointed. Some of your classmates work with faculty to run doxxing platforms, submit our names to websites and groups like Canary Mission and Betar, and turn our lives into targets. While they sit comfortably behind their screens, their actions have very real consequences for the rest of us. If I am deprived of my child in the first moments of his life, the people responsible will have been, among others, these students.

Especially in light of the dual degree program with Tel Aviv University, I can’t help but think that if I were in Palestine, some of these students would be the ones stopping me at checkpoints, raiding my university, piloting the drones surveilling my community, or killing my neighbors in their homes. While students were building solidarity at Columbia, some pro-Israel students were participating in the genocide as military personnel during their school breaks, only to return to campus and claim victimhood in the classroom.

These students who have smeared and attacked us have also benefited from the mutual backing of this institution and the federal government. Unable to build a movement supported by their peers, these students met instead with right-wing members of Congress to pressure a University crackdown. Abandoning all pretenses of neutrality, University Provost Angela Olinto and Armstrong also convened with the Israeli minister of education. Together, both coalitions pushed the weight of the federal government down on students.

I ask you, who is truly at risk here?

To the students who remain apathetic to Columbia’s disregard for human life and its willingness to discard student safety: As pressure from the federal government intensifies, know that your neutrality on Palestine will not protect you. When the time comes for the federal government to target other causes, it will be your names that Columbia will offer on a silver platter, it will be your pleas that fall on deaf ears, it will be your just causes that are stonewalled.

This institution’s singular concern has always been the vitality of its financial profile, not the safety of Jewish students. This is why Columbia was all too happy to embrace a superficial progressive agenda while still disregarding Palestine, and this is why it will soon turn on you, too.

This has been made clear most recently through the deputization of Public Safety officers to arrest students, the presence of New York Police Department officers and Department of Homeland Security agents on and around campus, the increasing use of surveillance technology, and the McCarthyist and racist interventions at the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies department. This institution has systematically gutted every value it claims to uphold all so that it may better function as an arm of the state.

If there was any illusion left, it shattered last week when the board of trustees executed a historic maneuver to seize direct control of the presidency. Cutting out their middleman, the board appointed fellow trustee Claire Shipman to a position reserved for academic leadership. Who can still pretend this is an educational institution and not the “Vichy on the Hudson”?

Faced with a movement for divestment they couldn’t crush, your trustees opted to set fire to the institution they’re entrusted with. It is incumbent upon each of you to reclaim the University and join the student movement to carry forward the work of the past year.

To members of Columbia’s faculty who pat themselves on the back for their progressive leanings but are content to limit their participation to performative statements: What will it take for you to resist the destruction of your University? Are your positions worth more than the lives of your students and the integrity of your work?

In his last message to a world that betrayed him, the beloved Palestinian journalist Hossam Shabat said, “I did all this because I believe in the Palestinian cause. I believe this land is ours, and it has been the highest honor of my life to die defending it and serving its people.”

So too do we believe that it is the highest honor of our lives to struggle for the cause of Palestinian liberation. The student movement will continue to carry the mantle of a free Palestine. History will redeem us, while those who were content to wait on the sidelines will be forever remembered for their silence.

Mahmoud Khalil is a recent Palestinian graduate of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He has previously worked in development and international affairs at the United Nations, the British government, as well as other non-profit organizations in the Middle East. He is currently being detained by the U.S. government for his pro-Palestinian advocacy.

To respond to this op-ed, or to submit your own, contact opinion@columbiaspectator.com.
 
Back