Judith Levine

The administration’s campaign against alleged domestic and foreign left-wing terrorism is compared with McCarthyism, but portrayed as more dangerous because of its broader ambitions, larger enforcement apparatus and advanced surveillance technology. The piece argues that investigations of progressive nonprofits, aggressive immigration enforcement, expansive terrorism designations and AI-enabled data collection threaten political dissent and civil liberties. It also criticizes congressional Republicans and the Supreme Court for failing to constrain presidential power, warning that weakened institutional checks could enable much harsher repression.

Graham Platner’s rise and collapse expose how Democrats and progressives have romanticized a white, masculine image of working-class authenticity while overlooking misogynistic and offensive behavior. Allies tolerated his Nazi-adjacent tattoo, use of an ableist slur and comments appearing to blame rape victims, but largely withdrew support after Jenny Racicot accused him of rape and Politico published a detailed account of her experience. Platner denied the allegation and suspended his campaign, blaming broader power structures rather than himself. The episode underscores the article’s argument that Democrats should broaden their model of populist leadership to include feminist women, LGBTQ+ people and men whose toughness does not depend on disparaging or threatening women.

The Supreme Court upheld state bans excluding transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports, reinforcing Trump-era policies defining sex as strictly binary. The ruling is framed as part of a broader conservative campaign to curtail bodily autonomy, including attacks on abortion rights and gender-affirming care. The article argues that the court and the administration rely on pseudoscience and ideological narratives to invalidate trans identities and restrict their legal recognition. These policies are depicted as attempts to bureaucratically erase trans people and undermine women’s rights while causing widespread harm.

The removal of Donald Trump’s name from the Kennedy Center follows a court ruling that found only Congress could legally rename the institution. The dispute arose after Trump replaced the center’s leadership with allies, became its chair and oversaw changes that the commentary says led to staff layoffs, artists’ departures and falling ticket sales. Although the bronze letters have reportedly been removed, a tarp conceals the work, delaying the public spectacle. The author frames the act as symbolic iconoclasm that could provide catharsis for Trump’s opponents and signify declining prestige and power.

The Trump administration’s plans for the United States’ 250th anniversary are portrayed as replacing the bipartisan America250 commemoration with Freedom 250, a heavily politicized project centered on Trump, MAGA populism and Christian nationalism. The piece argues that public funds and private donations are being redirected toward military spectacle, patriotic monuments, religious events and educational materials that minimize slavery, Indigenous dispossession, racism and women’s experiences. It highlights pressure on cultural and educational institutions, corporate sponsorship of Trump-linked events and donor incentives involving access to the president. The result, it argues, is a commercial and ideological campaign that uses national celebration to promote a sanitized version of American history and suppress historical disagreement.

Donald Trump is portrayed as increasingly abandoning even the appearance of avoiding conflicts of interest, openly using presidential power and public resources to benefit himself, his family and allies. The column focuses on the proposed $1.776bn IRS-related fund, which followed Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against the agency and would reportedly waive liabilities and future enforcement actions against him and his companies. It argues that legal uncertainty, congressional inaction and media normalization could allow the money to be distributed before effective challenges succeed. More broadly, the piece contends that impunity breeds public cynicism and fatalism, conditions that enable autocracy and kleptocracy. It concludes that resisting cynical complacency requires clear-eyed pessimism, continued outrage and recognition of winnable political battles.

A growing network of immigrant-rights advocates, community groups and protesters has slowed the Trump administration’s mass-deportation campaign through court challenges, public demonstrations, documentation and political pressure. Resistance contributed to retreats by federal officials, lawsuits over ICE practices, difficulties funding immigration enforcement and legal concessions concerning arrests near immigration courts. The campaign remains active, however, with racial profiling, immigration prosecutions, threats to undocumented and foreign-born children, asylum restrictions and efforts to end birthright citizenship still advancing. Continued organizing in the courts, at the polls and in the streets is presented as necessary to prevent the administration from finding new ways to pursue its agenda.

Judith Levine argues that Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth have treated the Iran war as a spectacle and a transactional opportunity, celebrating extensive destruction while making contradictory claims about mercy, victory and peace. She contends that the administration has failed to demonstrate that Iran's nuclear capacity was eliminated, avoided congressional authorization by calling the conflict a combat operation, and abandoned Iranian protesters opposed to the regime. The ceasefire is portrayed as fragile, particularly because Israel's attacks on Lebanon continue, while Trump focuses on potential Gulf profits, oil transit and his political legacy. The result, she argues, is a costly and dangerous conflict that has left Iranians caught between their own government and foreign military intervention.

Rising fears of World War III and nuclear conflict have intensified following the US-Israeli bombardment of Iran, with analysts discussing possible escalation involving Russia, China, North Korea and other countries. The expiration of the New Start treaty has removed a key limit on US and Russian strategic arsenals, while military deployments and increasingly casual public discussion of nuclear survival reinforce the sense of danger. The piece condemns the normalization and commercialization of nuclear catastrophe, including bunker sales and prediction markets, and argues that neither denial nor resignation to Armageddon is acceptable.

Judith Levine argues that Democrats should refuse to fund the Department of Homeland Security and accept a partial government shutdown to oppose the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. She says ICE and Border Patrol agents have killed civilians, violated constitutional protections and carried out mass arrests, while the administration has weakened public services, targeted political opponents and prioritized military and executive interests. Although a shutdown would harm federal workers and families dependent on benefits, Levine contends that the current government is more damaging than a temporary closure. She frames the standoff as a broader struggle over abolishing ICE, resisting authoritarianism and determining the political and moral future of the United States.

The US intervention in Venezuela is argued to be motivated by oil, geopolitical power and control rather than concern for Venezuelan freedom. Trump’s abandonment of Venezuelan refugees, deportations, travel restrictions, immigration enforcement and threats of domestic repression are compared with abuses attributed to Nicolás Maduro’s government. The column argues that Trump may prefer the compliant Delcy Rodríguez to opposition leader María Corina Machado because a genuine election could undermine continued US control and oil extraction. It warns that military escalation could enable emergency powers, harsher deportations and the erosion of civil liberties, concluding that Trump’s central priority is personal power and enrichment rather than democracy or human rights.

The Trump administration is portrayed as escalating an effort to restrict transgender existence through healthcare policy, product regulation and criminal legislation. Robert F Kennedy Jr’s proposal would threaten federal funding for hospitals providing gender-affirming care to minors, while the FDA has warned suppliers of binders, tucking underwear and prostheses over medical-device registration. The article also criticizes the administration’s broader health appointments and Trump’s order defining sex as exclusively male or female. It argues that criminalization will not eliminate transgender and nonbinary people, but will drive them toward black-market care and unlicensed providers, increasing the risks of illness, impairment and death.

Donald Trump’s administration is pursuing the sale of federal properties, including architecturally and historically significant buildings containing New Deal murals, while redesigning Washington through projects such as a white-painted Eisenhower Executive Office Building, changes to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, an expanded presidential ballroom and a proposed triumphal arch. The selloff is presented as an attack on public heritage and the civic values of government-funded architecture, while Trump’s monuments are portrayed as expressions of personal glorification and an idealized, authoritarian vision of America.

Republicans are attempting to recast affordability as a central political issue after Democrats, including Zohran Mamdani, won support with that message. The commentary argues that Republican policies—including tariffs, potential cuts to housing assistance, inadequate energy aid and opposition to extending Affordable Care Act tax credits—are likely to increase household costs. Donald Trump’s contradictory statements, unfulfilled promises and proposals such as tariff dividends and 50-year mortgages further undermine the party’s credibility. The administration’s handling of food assistance during the government shutdown, alongside its effort to pressure Democrats over healthcare subsidies, is presented as especially damaging to the party’s claim to represent struggling Americans.

Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City’s mayoral race is presented as a historic breakthrough for the American left and a test of whether democratic socialist politics can govern effectively. The panel attributes his success less to charisma or social media than to disciplined organizing and a focus on rent, wages, housing, transit and affordability. Contributors argue that voters’ economic anxieties outweighed culture-war attacks over Israel and socialism, while criticizing Democratic leaders for withholding support. Mamdani’s governing challenges and expected opposition from Republicans and his own party remain significant, but the result is portrayed as a hopeful model for working-class politics beyond New York.

Millions of people joined more than 2,600 No Kings demonstrations across the United States to protest Donald Trump’s second presidency and what organizers described as a drift toward authoritarianism. Large, largely peaceful crowds gathered in cities including New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and Portland, with some marches matching or exceeding June’s turnout. Democratic lawmakers and other speakers condemned Trump’s policies, immigration enforcement and perceived threats to civil liberties, while Trump rejected the protesters’ characterization of him by saying, “I’m not a king.” Republican governors activated or placed National Guard units on standby in several states. Most demonstrations concluded without major incidents, although federal officers used gas against protesters outside an ICE facility in Portland.

Judith Levine argues that Trump allies are deliberately portraying the October 18 No Kings demonstrations as anti-American, pro-Hamas and violent in order to frighten participants, provoke clashes and justify a wider government crackdown. She warns that armed far-right groups, federal forces and aggressive policing could turn any confrontation into grounds for invoking the Insurrection Act. Levine urges protesters to practice disciplined, open-hearted nonviolence and highlights Indivisible’s safety and de-escalation guidance, arguing that peaceful mass participation can undermine the administration’s depiction of the left as a violent domestic enemy.

Judith Levine argues that Stephen Miller poses a greater long-term threat to US democracy than Donald Trump because he is a disciplined ideological strategist who could preserve MAGA after Trump leaves office. She criticizes Miller's claim that the president has virtually unlimited authority under Title 10, explaining that constitutional checks, judicial orders and laws such as the Posse Comitatus Act constrain executive power. Miller's apocalyptic rhetoric about domestic enemies is presented as an effort to mobilize supporters for political conflict, while Trump's declining coherence allegedly increases Miller's influence. Levine concludes that Miller must be closely challenged because a future Miller dictatorship could be more durable and dangerous than Trump's rule.

Federal Unionists Network and 35 unions are urging Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries to resist Republican budget demands, even if doing so triggers a government shutdown and delayed federal paychecks. The unions argue that the fight should defend public services, democratic oversight, science, organized labor and economic justice. Judith Levine contends that their willingness to endure hardship gives Democrats an opportunity to reclaim their identity and reconnect with their labor base, while accusing Republicans of undermining the civil service to benefit wealthy and corporate interests.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is presented as a possible political pretext for the Trump administration to intensify repression, echoing how the Nazis exploited the 1933 Reichstag fire. The piece highlights threats against media organizations, progressive nonprofits, protesters, universities, immigrants and alleged political opponents, arguing that government institutions and right-wing activists are jointly mobilizing against dissent. Although the author stresses that the United States remains more institutionally resilient than Weimar Germany, she warns that civil liberties could erode without broad popular resistance and points to federalism, independent media, civil-rights groups and grassroots organizing as sources of hope.