The court’s majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, held that states do not have to draw majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Act and, in fact, should not consider race at all when drawing boundaries. By framing race-based remedies as themselves discriminatory, the Court’s conservative supermajority handed Republican-controlled legislatures in the South a legal cover they have eagerly sought to water down Black representation.

They wasted no time using it.

A week after the court’s ruling, we made our way through north Texas and Arkansas into Tennessee, former Confederate states, now governed by Republican-majority legislatures. Each moved swiftly to target their majority-Black congressional districts — weakening Black political power and representation across the region. What unfolded in the weeks that followed was not a cautious, measured response to a complex legal ruling. It was a coordinated rush..

The mechanism is as old as Southern politics itself: racial gerrymandering dressed up as partisan line-drawing. By arguing that the law’s remedies to combat discrimination had themselves become racist, the Callais decision allows states to redraw heavily Black districts that have historically elected Democrats while claiming the designs are based on party interests, not race. In practice, the distinction is almost meaningless in states where Black voters and Democratic voters are largely the same constituency. Regardless of criteria, redistricting to gain political advantage should not be legal.

Tennessee moved first. Both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly, where Republicans hold supermajorities, approved a new map that targets the Memphis-anchored 9th District. Shelby County, home to Memphis, would be split between three districts, and the new 9th would stretch from Memphis to the Nashville area while hugging the Mississippi border. Under the new lines, the majority-Black city of Memphis was fractured into political irrelevance.

I became aware of Tennessee’s redistricting efforts the day we drove on into North Carolina, still unaware of the coordinated effort taking place across the south. North Carolina had new maps approved in 2025 to favor Republicans, and they chose to take no further action.

A couple of days later, my husband and I were charmed by Charleston’s historic architecture but shamed by the Old Exchange Building grounds where enslaved people had been auctioned to white landowners for more than a hundred years. It was estimated that more than half of enslaved persons entered the country at Charleston. The Charleston Museum—the oldest in the nation—faithfully depicted the Civil War and Reconstruction era, including exhibits making clear the origins of the Ku Klux Clan and Jim Crow laws that followed soon after.

Having just read The First Eight, by James Clyburn, I was particularly interested in how the museum treated those early Black Congressmen. The following day, I realized the South Carolina legislature was in the process of considering elimination of Clyburn’s district. Rep. Jim Clyburn is the most senior Black member of Congress and a figure of national stature. In the end, the legislature left it alone, but I give them no credit for that. It should never have been considered.

From South Carolina, we turned back towards Texas and crossed through Georgia before spending a night in Montgomery, Alabama. It was then I learned that there would be a reenactment of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery March for voting rights the following weekend, called “All Roads Lead to the South.”

We decided to take the route of the 1965 marchers, but in reverse. We drove from Montgomery to Selma, via Highway 80 and visited the National Park Service Interpretive Center halfway. Tracing the steps of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lewis and others by car, as well as walking across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma set the tone for the rest of our trip through Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, then back to Texas. I could no longer naively pretend that southern attitudes toward civil rights for all have changed since Reconstruction. They have not, and I’m disheartened.

Not every effort to undo progress toward equal voting rights has gone unchallenged. A three-judge federal panel blocked Alabama Republicans’ recent redistricting plan, finding that the map unconstitutionally discriminates against Black voters. Unfortunately, several days later, the Supreme Court overruled that decision and signaled that the redrawn maps could be used, effectively eliminating one of only two Black opportunity districts.

The deliberate targeting of districts where Black voters determine electoral outcomes has been vehemently condemned by voting rights advocates and the Congressional Black Caucus, which joined the NAACP in calling for boycotts at public universities in states where Black voting power has been diluted.

The deeper historical irony is inescapable. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed precisely because, as President Lyndon B. Johnson observed at the time, every device of which human ingenuity was capable had been used to deny Black Americans the vote. Six decades later, Supreme Court rulings and Republican-led redistricting efforts are accelerating the erosion of Black representation across the South. The devices have been updated — packed precincts replaced by cracked districts, poll taxes replaced by partisan cover — but the intent, critics argue, is the same.

Callais did not create this conflict. It simply cleared the last legal barrier for a return to Jim Crow era voter discrimination. Former Confederate states, for the most part, are embracing it. And it’s disingenuous to pretend the goal is simply partisan gain.

“Democrats are the party of communists, radical leftists, lunatics, and America haters”. (MS Now News Junkie) One America, 4/26/26.

The above statement is a frequent remark made by Stephen Miller. He throws this rhetoric around to describe Democratic officials, judges, and the party as a whole. (The Hill, D. Mastrangelo, 5/30/25). Miller claims to be a graduate of the Political Science Department at Duke University. Even first-year students know that the US Democratic Party has absolutely nothing to do with the communist party or communist ideology.

Communism is a political and economic ideology advocating a classless, stateless, and moneyless society based on common ownership of the means of production. The US Democratic Party’s political and economic ideology centers on advocating for a stronger governmental role in regulation, social welfare, and promoting equality. Key tenets include progressive taxation, a robust social safety net (Medicare, Social Security), environmental protection, strengthening unions, and protecting civil rights. The US Democratic party is not based on communist ideology.

The fact is that Miller is wrong on just about every level. The majority of democrats are 56% white (18% black, 16% hispanic) and 53% women. US Democrats include moderates and liberals, with very few individuals identifying as communist or socialist. Polling data indicates that actual identification with communism or democratic socialism is limited to a small “fringe” of the party (11%). Individuals committed to these ideologies have their own parties.

One must assume, that an educated person, would not be perpetuating these false claims unless they had a sinister purpose. The intention appears to be a desire to cast the US Democratic party and party members as domestic terrorists or a third world party. The use of bogus political rhetoric is meant to instill fear, create division and perpetuate lies. Miller is a well known “white supremacist” and most of his hateful speeches and rhetoric are aimed at immigrants. His views are often expressed through references to the “Great Replacement Theory”. A theory that suggests that people of color are trying to replace white people. But, he really despises democrats because they espouse a very different view of America than the one he supports (Christian Nationalism). “You are envy. You are hatred. You are nothing.” (Miller describing his fantasy enemies at a Charlie Kirk Memorial Service, 9/21/25).

It appears that Miller does not believe that other Americans have the right to their own opinions or to disagree with him. In the above quote he again attempts to cast those with competing views on American government and culture as “the other”. The “other” meaning different, not like us, sinister, individuals with bad intentions, etc. This characterization justifies verbal abuse, accusations about motives (e.g. immigration), and filing bogus criminal charges against opponents to harass and intimidate. It also appears to include directions to ICE agents that they are above the law. (Fox News appearance, 10/24/25). His statements suggest that immigrants, protestors, advocates for due process, even innocent bystanders can be assaulted if they interfere with ICE agents. This proclamation by Miller appears to have lead to the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota. The agents who killed these Americans are still not being punished for their crimes.

“Stephen Miller is a central figure in shaping the Trump Administration’s agenda. From enabling state violence against immigrant families to promoting white nationalist rhetoric in government, his career is a warning of what happens when bigotry gains institutional power.” 1 It would be a mistake to underestimate his intentions. He has earned the title“Scoundrel of the Year”.

1 Common Cause, “Top 5 Most Awful Things You Need to Know about Stephen Miller, 7/16/25.

Subscribe now

Share

One of the most destructive agents of disinformation in our age is artificial intelligence (AI), which can create and disseminate untruths around the world almost instantaneously. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to separate fact from “manufactured truth.” AI’s generative tools are capable of producing text, images, audio, and video which profoundly alter how people encounter information. AI does offer real benefits—for research purposes, in particular. However, its prolific use in producing “original” content (from existing content it harvests online) has eroded public trust in what we see and read. Sowing distrust is a key tool of authoritarian regimes. “Don’t believe your eyes or ears,” autocrats say. “Believe what we tell you.”

The line between authentic and synthetic content is increasingly blurred, creating what researchers call a “liar’s dividend”: when anything can be faked, everything becomes easier to doubt. Understanding why and how this erosion of trust is happening is essential to protecting the integrity of information ecosystems and democratic discourse.

One of the primary drivers of declining trust is the rise of highly convincing synthetic media. AI technologies have lowered the barrier to creating deceptive content. What once required advanced technical expertise can now be done quickly and cheaply, often by individuals with minimal training. This shift has had a direct impact on how people perceive visual evidence. Historically, photographs and videos were treated as strong indicators of truth. While manipulation has always existed, it was relatively difficult to execute convincingly. Today, AI-generated images can depict events that never occurred—political figures in fabricated scenarios, disaster scenes that never happened, or “evidence” of crimes that were never committed. As these images circulate widely on social media, they contribute to confusion and skepticism. Even when authentic visuals are presented, audiences may question their legitimacy.

Deepfakes

The phenomenon of deepfakes illustrates this challenge clearly. Deepfakes are AI-generated or AI-altered videos that make individuals appear to say or do things they never did. Research from organizations such as MIT Media Lab has shown that humans struggle to reliably distinguish deepfakes from real videos, especially as the technology improves. A 2022 study by the Stanford Internet Observatory highlighted how quickly synthetic media tools are evolving, warning that detection methods often lag behind generation capabilities.

This technological asymmetry—where creating fakes is easier than detecting them—undermines trust. When viewers know that convincing fakes exist, they may begin to doubt all visual content, not just suspicious examples. This is the essence of the “liar’s dividend.” Public figures, for instance, can dismiss genuine evidence as fake, exploiting general uncertainty to avoid accountability. In this way, the existence of AI-generated deception weakens the evidentiary power of real media.

Text-based AI has contributed to the erosion of trust as well. Large language models can produce fluent, persuasive writing that mimics human authorship. While useful in many contexts, these systems can also generate misleading articles, fabricated citations, or coordinated disinformation at scale. AI-generated content can amplify existing misinformation campaigns, making them more difficult to detect and counter.

Another factor contributing to declining trust is the speed and scale at which AI-generated content spreads. Social media platforms prioritize engagement, often amplifying content that is novel, emotional, or controversial, qualities that synthetic media can easily replicate. Once misleading content goes viral, corrections often fail to reach the same audience. Studies by the Pew Research Center have shown that Americans are increasingly concerned about their ability to identify accurate information online, with many expressing uncertainty about what sources to trust.

Consequences of trust erosion are far-reaching. In journalism, audiences may become skeptical of legitimate reporting, weakening the role of the press as a watchdog. In politics, voters may struggle to distinguish real statements from fabricated ones, undermining informed decision-making. In everyday life, individuals may become cynical, adopting a default assumption that all information is suspect. This uncertainty can be just as damaging as believing falsehoods outright, as it discourages engagement and erodes shared reality.

AI Regulation

Efforts to regulate Artificial Intelligence have been spotty and inconsistent. Most states limit use of AI in certain specific situations, such as employment decisions, or in certain industry sectors, such as healthcare. Many states are updating existing privacy laws to include rights for individuals to access, correct, or delete data used in AI profiling. As AI technologies develop, there will undoubtedly be new and more specific laws passed in response to disturbing or outrageous situations. While it might be hoped that the industry would police itself, that cannot be assumed. Remember Grok’s explicit photo generation and Musk’s unhelpful response?

Texas enacted the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA) via House Bill 149 on June 22, 2025, to regulate AI use. It was effective January 1, 2026 and controls AI development and deployment by prohibiting harmful uses, such as intentional discrimination, behavioral manipulation, and unlawful deepfakes. It establishes a regulatory sandbox for testing AI, requires government transparency, and bans non-consensual biometric surveillance The law also establishes the Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council to study and monitor use of AI systems in state government. Stay tuned, though. Greater oversight will almost surely be warranted.

The Trump administration’s emphasis is on innovation in AI, rather than regulation. President Trump’s December 11, 2025, Executive Order 14365, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” aims to accelerate AI development by reducing regulatory barriers and establishing a uniform federal standard over a “patchwork” of state AI laws. The order emphasizes AI dominance, promotes industry-led standards, and threats to withhold federal funding from states with restrictive AI regulations. There are efforts to accelerate innovation while implementing safety standards, however. Key initiatives include the White House National Legislative Policy Framework (2026), focusing on child safety (Kids Online Safety Act), intellectual property protection (NO FAKES Act), and restricting state-level AI regulations to create a single national standard. It remains to be seen whose interests will be protected in such a standard: AI developers, AI investors, or ordinary citizens.

How to Detect Inauthentic Information

Despite challenges posed by eroded trust in information sources, there are practical steps individuals can take to better distinguish AI-generated content from authentic material. While no method is foolproof, a combination of critical thinking and verification techniques can significantly reduce vulnerability to deception.

1. Examine the source. Content from established, reputable organizations with transparent editorial standards is more reliable than anonymous or unfamiliar accounts. Cross-checking information across multiple credible sources can help confirm its accuracy.

2. Look for inconsistencies in visual details. AI-generated images often contain subtle anomalies—unnatural lighting, distorted text, irregular reflections, or mismatched shadows. In videos, pay attention to unnatural facial movements, inconsistent lip-syncing, or visual artifacts around the edges of a subject’s face.

3. Verify context using reverse image search tools. Google Images or TinEye can reveal whether an image has appeared elsewhere online, sometimes in a different context, helping identify reused or manipulated content.

4. Consider the plausibility of the content. Ask whether the scenario depicted aligns with known facts and credible reporting. AI-generated disinformation often relies on emotionally charged or sensational claims designed to provoke immediate reactions.

5. Rely on emerging verification technologies. The Content Authenticity Initiative aims to embed metadata in digital media, providing information about how and when content was created. While not yet universal, it represents a step toward restoring trust.

6. Cultivate a habit of deliberate skepticism rather than reflexive disbelief. The goal is not to assume everything is fake, but to approach information thoughtfully, recognizing both the possibilities and limitations of AI-generated content.

The proliferation of AI has complicated the information landscape. By making it easier to fabricate convincing text, images, and videos, it has weakened long-standing assumptions about the reliability of sensory evidence. The solution is not to abandon trust altogether, but to rebuild it on a more informed foundation. Through education, critical evaluation, and technological safeguards, individuals and institutions can adapt to this new reality.

Trust, once eroded, is difficult to restore. But with awareness and deliberate effort, it is possible to navigate an AI-saturated world without losing confidence in the existence of truth itself.

Note: Pam Bondi was fired today April 2, 2026!

In 2025, after Trump’s first choice (Matt Gaetz) had to be withdrawn, Trump nominated Pam Bondi for Attorney General of the United States. This was no surprise as Bondi was an outspoken loyalist, infamous as an election denier. For example, Bondi claimed Trump won Pennsylvania in the 2020 presidential election when he actually lost by 80,000 votes. Even after the count was final, Bondi went on FOX news claiming voter fraud. She insinuated that Seth Bluestein, a local election official, engaged in suspect behavior. He was merely talking to poll observers from both parties. This accusation led to antisemitic threats from the MAGA crowd resulting in his family requiring police protection.

As a result of her loyalist reputation, Bondi had a difficult confirmation hearing. Dick Durbin (Senator, IL) was one of her outspoken opponents. He insisted “Bondi has proven herself loyal to Trump and wealthy special interests.” He pointed out her significant role in promoting lies regarding the 2020 presidential election. “The American people deserve an AG who will protect their right to vote always…[i] . Unfortunately, she was confirmed by a vote of 54-46. Bondi got right to work. Her first order of business was to attack the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

It’s important to pause here and outline what the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is supposed to be doing. The DOJ is an executive department that enforces federal law and represents the US government in legal matters and ensures the fair administration of justice. One of the divisions of the DOJ is the Civil Rights Division (CRD). This division is responsible for upholding civil rights thereby ensuring fair treatment and justice for all Americans. One of the 11 sections of the CRD is the Voting Rights Section.

The Department of Justice, if providing the functions as stated, is essential for maintaining the rule of law, protecting consumers, and ensuring that justice is served. However, the following are examples of how Pam Bondi has chosen to perform her duties.

1. Fire attorneys who do not support the policies of Trump or who have been involved in past cases against him.

2. Start investigations, which could lead to criminal proceedings, against Trumps perceived enemies.

3. Fail to prosecute individuals that Trump wants to protect.

4. Protect Trump from the release of the Epstein files.

5. Bring litigation against blue states even if there is no evidence.

6. Go on social media and make inflammatory statements.

7. Have dinner and private meetings with the President.

8. Testify before Congress – refuse to answer, lie, and attack questioners.

9. Perpetuate the myth that our elections are flawed and corrupt.

10. Try to obtain voting records or access to private information on American citizens.

One of Bondi’s major initiatives was to restructure the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to align with conservative priorities, i.e., dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. She dismissed cases against police departments and removed key voting rights leadership. She shifted the focus from protecting marginalized groups to targeting what she termed “Anti-Christian bias.” Anti-Christian bias appears to be defined by Trump Executive Order 14202 as eliminating policies that target Christians within government agencies. According to Northrup (Center for Reproductive Rights) and F. Graves (National Women’s Law Center) this executive order could be used to protect anti-choice activists from punishment for harassing staff and women seeking abortions at abortion clinics!

One of Bondi’s actions confirmed the warnings of Dick Durbin. In April of 2025 Bondi removed the leadership team of the DOJ Voting Section. Reassigning or retiring the Chief and five career managers. Out of the 30 original lawyers in the Voting Rights Section only three lawyers were left by mid- 2025. [ii] Bondi dismissed existing voting rights cases including an important challenge to a 2021 Georgia election law passed by Republicans. The court challenge claimed that this law sought to deny black voter’s equal access. The thrust of these actions was to shift the focus of the voting rights section from protecting voter access to enforcing voter fraud policies. Bondi’s overall attempts to crush cases, change focus, and pursue cases of voter fraud led to a staff exodus. Not only did Bondi manage to severely reduce the staff in the Voting Rights Section, but she also managed to lose 70% of the Civil Rights Division lawyers, some 250 people.

No account of Bondi’s acts would be complete without discussing her tortured history with the Epstein files. As the AG for Florida (2010-19) she chose not to intervene in the controversial non-prosecution agreement that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to lesser charges and receive a reduced sentence. He was granted work release where he continued to abuse women. Two complaints have been filed in federal court describing abuse during this time period.

And Ms. Bondi’s contentious handling of the Epstein files brought on widespread criticism. In early 2025 Bondi told Fox News she had a “client list” of the names of powerful individuals named in the files. They are “sitting on my desk” she claimed waiting for release. However, in July of 2025 the DOJ and FBI, under her leadership, claimed there was no such list! When the “Epstein Files-Phase I” were finally released, the documents contained mostly public information which was already known. This fact created fury amongst conservatives and conspiracy theorists. [iii]

Once the Epstein Files Transparency Act became law in November of 2025, things began to change. The legislation requires the DOJ to release all documents, files, and images related to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Bondi subsequently released millions of pages of files demonstrating that Epstein abused over 1000 victims. She has been criticized repeatedly by lawmakers and advocacy groups alike for 1) refusing to comply with subpoenas, 2) suppressing files relating to Trump, 3) providing incomplete records, 4) releasing heavily blacked out or missing FBI 302 forms (witness interviews) and for, 5) redacting names that should have been made public and revealing names and pictures of victims.

In February of 2026 during a fiery hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Bondi defended her handling of the files. She was called a liar by Ted Lieu (D-Calif) for stating that “there is no evidence that Donald Trump committed a crime.” Lieu stated that the evidence in the files contradicts her statement. He asked her to resign. Subsequently, Representative Lieu and Goldman sent a letter to the DOJ calling for a special counsel to investigate Bondi for perjury. During this same hearing, a photo was produced of Bondi’s “burn book.” This book revealed that the DOJ was tracking the search histories of members of Congress that were being allowed to review the unreleased Epstein files at a secure location. Representatives Raskin and Jayapal demanded that the DOJ stop the surveillance. She was accused of investigating political opponents of Trump instead of leading a thorough, broader investigation of the Epstein network.

The intention of Pam Bondi is clear. She intends to pervert the justice department into an instrument of Donald Trump. After witnessing Bondi’s recent behavior at a congressional oversight hearing, this is a woman who believes there will never be any accountability for her conduct.

[i] “Election Denier Pam Bondi Won’t Protect our Sacred Right o Vote,” US Senate Committee on the Judiciary 1/15/25.

[ii] “Trump’s A.G. Pam Bondi guts DOJ’s Voting Rights Leadership, Press release, Common Cause, 4/28/25.

[iii] “Epstein release reveals new photos, but many files are withheld,” Barrett, Feuer, and Gold, The New York Times, 12/19/25. And, “What we know about the Epstein files that the US is poised to release,” Geoghigan and Fitzgerald, BBC, 12/19/25.

While spreading disinformation about Sharia Law is not limited to Texas, Texas candidates whose ads feature fearmongering about the Muslim community and their supposed efforts to impose Sharia Law is a long list. Some of the most prominent of these and the sometimes preposterous rhetoric they promote are noted below.

• Aaron Reitz (Texas Attorney General Candidate): Reitz released a television ad titled “Not On My Watch”. In the ad, he claims that politicians have “imported millions of Muslims” and that some are seeking to “impose Sharia law” through “illegal cities” in Texas.

• “MAGA” Mayes Middleton (Texas Attorney General Candidate ): His Facebook campaign page states: “No Sharia in Texas. I’m fighting to stop the Islamification of our state.”

• John Cornyn (U.S. Senator, Texas): Cornyn launched a high-budget ad titled “Evil Face” that characterizes “radical Islam” as a “bloodthirsty ideology” and highlights his efforts to revoke the tax-exempt status of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

• Charles Schwertner (Texas State Senator): Schwertner released a campaign ad stating, “We follow the Constitution, not Sharia law,” while advocating for the deportation of those who follow what he terms “radical Islam”.

• Wesley Hunt (U.S. Representative, Texas): Hunt, running for U.S. Senate, has used social media ads and posts via his “Hunt War Room” account to spar over the alleged “threats of Islamification” in Texas.

What is Sharia Law Anyway?

Because it draws this much vitriol, Sharia Law must be horrific, right? The truth is that Sharia Law is primarily religious law, derived from the Quran, which requires or recommends ordinary practices of the Islamic faith. It is not a codified legal system; there is no central authority that imposes it globally. Sharia Law primarily guides personal conduct, worship, and moral commitments for Muslims.

The Objectives of Sharia and the areas of everyday life they apply to are:

· Religion: Protecting the freedom of belief and worship.

· Life: Safeguarding the sanctity of human life.

· Intellect: Preserving the mind and promoting education while prohibiting intoxicants.

· Progeny/Family: Protecting family lineage and the sanctity of the family unit.

· Property/Wealth” Safeguarding assets and ensuring economic justice.

The Core Pillars of Practice, which provide structure for a Muslim’s direct relationship with God, based on the Five Pillars of Islam:

· Shahada: Declaration of faith.

· Salah: Five daily ritual prayers.

· Zakat: Obligatory almsgiving for social welfare (typically 2.5% of wealth).

· Sawm: Fasting during the month of Ramadan.

· Hajj: Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime.

In addition, there are interpersonal and social rules for individuals:

· Family Law: Detailed guidelines for marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance.

· Economic Ethics: Prohibition of usury or interest on loans and excessive risk/gambling to promote fair trade and risk-sharing.

· Moral Conduct: Mandating honesty, kindness to neighbors, and caring for the vulnerable (orphans, elderly).

· Justice: Principles of consultation and equality before the law.

While my ideas of the best way to “protect family lineage” or “safeguard the sanctity of life” may differ from those of the ordinary Muslim, I find nothing objectionable in any of these precepts. They’re even less objectionable than Christian Nationalist principles, in my opinion. Interpretations differ, of course. However, in general, each of these objectives, practices, and rules apply only to individuals. Ironically, I see nothing here that conflicts with Republican ideology. So what’s the big deal?

What Fearmongers Get Wrong About Sharia

There are several myths, or deliberate untruths, that are routinely rolled out to gin up fear toward Sharia Law, and by extension, anyone who chooses to adhere to it.

· Myth #1: Sharia law is quietly taking over Western courts and legal systems.

Reality: There is no evidence that Sharia is being applied instead of U.S. or other Western laws. Proposals to ban Sharia in state constitutions target a non-existent threat and can be discriminatory.

· Myth #2: Muslim communities in the U.S. want to replace American law with Sharia law.

Reality: Muslim Americans participate in the same civic and legal systems as other citizens. There is no organized effort to supplant U.S. law with Sharia.

· Myth #3: Sharia inherently promotes violence, misogyny, or anti-democratic rule.

Reality: Like any religious or ethical tradition, including Christian or Jewish traditions, perceptions of meaning vary. Many Muslims emphasize principles like justice, charity, and family life; these cultural practices often shape local laws in Muslim-majority countries.

· Myth #4: There are secret Muslim “Sharia zones” where U.S. law doesn’t apply.

Reality: This is false. U.S. courts retain full authority, and any attempt to enforce foreign or religious law that conflicts with constitutional principles would be invalid.

Why Disinformation About Sharia Law is Destructive

During election season, inciting fear of those who choose to follow Sharia Law is, at the very least a distraction from substantive policy discussions. It promotes purely emotional reactions in voters and discourages rational discernment. When candidates suggest there’s no need to offer stances on public policy, it’s more likely that they simply have nothing worthwhile to offer.

Even worse, deliberately disseminating disinformation about minorities further marginalizes them and reinforces stereotypes. There is no factual evidence for much of their alarmist handwringing. These narratives tap into Islamophobic tropes and portray Muslims as untrustworthy, secretive, or inherently incompatible with democracy. All to advance bigoted political views.

If you scour the internet, within minutes you’ll find videos or photos that purport to demonstrate that Muslims are inextricably linked to terrorism or terrorist acts. Some videos are supposed responses to current events but are misattributed to specific events and stripped of context. Others are completely fictional or AI generated.

Remember: disinformation isn’t limited to untruths. It includes contextual distortion—just enough fact mixed with misleading implications to create fear.

Sharia Law and the Ten Commandments

On a basic level, Sharia Law for Muslims is analogous to the Ten Commandments for Christians. Both offer moral and ethical guidance that shapes how Muslims or Christians live. In neither faith are the “rules” a criminal code. Sharia (“the way”) is rooted in the Quran; the Ten Commandments are rooted in the Bible. Both scriptures are considered divinely inspired. Both sets of guidelines emphasize everyday personal behaviors: be honest, don’t steal, don’t murder, respect family, care for the poor, and act with integrity. Which of these would you disagree with?

As with any faith, interpretations vary among adherents. There are radical Muslims and radical Christians. I submit that Christian Nationalists and radical Muslims have more in common than they would lead you to believe, and the former vehemently oppose the latter, despite their similarities. Both radical sects insist there is only one way to practice their faith “correctly,” which justifies imposing their beliefs on nonbelievers, i.e., posting Ten Commandments posters in public classrooms. While Texas candidates would have us believe Muslims are intent on imposing their laws on non-Muslims, there has been no effort to my knowledge to post Sharia Law posters in public places.

The bottom line is this: For believers, Sharia functions much like the Ten Commandments: a faith-based moral compass shaping personal behavior, interpreted through community and conscience—not a secret plan to replace secular law. No Texan or US citizen can be legally compelled to adhere to either of them.

There is an expression in Texas for showboats without substance: “All hat, no cattle.” We have seen a lot of memes and examples of this administrations struggle with this lack of substance over the past year, but the first three weeks of this new year have been akin to rowdy frat boys playing tough guys in black velour party hats with flashing lights like one might wear to New Years eve in Times Square after already being three sheets to the wind and thinking it seemed a good idea. Except it is more like the ominous opening scene of a horror flick, with an intentional chilling effect.

It has been chaotic. Everyone is asking, “How can they say things that don’t add up to the evidence we can see?” I have heard more than one person say, “Don’t they understand that this is not playing well?” The questions stem from what we expect to be normal motivations among political figures who need voters’ support. Perhaps the question should be “Are we there already?” Are we already at that point in the execution of Project 2025’s manifesto and plan that the administration is so solidified in putting their heads down, working the plan, and forcing us to swallow the gaslight to feel safe that they don’t need to be concerned with public opinion? They just need to count on intimidation.

We are all aware of the history of the Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo), brought into existence in 1933 to enforce compliance and silence opposition to the Nazi nationalist agenda. The Nazi regime began a three-step plan to establish the mission of the secret police:

1. Revamp the police force to expel those who were not affiliated and completely supportive of the nationalist ideology.

2. Replace those expelled with ideological sympathizers.

3. Implement a policy that would allow the revamped police force to act without consequences, with total immunity.

In August 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began posting recruitment images of Uncle Sam alongside a caption, “Which Way American Man?” It was quickly recognized to invoke a reference to William Gayley Simpson’s 1978 Neo-Nazi National Alliance manifesto, Which Way Western Man? In which Simpson wrote, “Let me preface what I am about to say by declaring frankly that I am prepared to accept violence on the part of our people. The Jews’ hold on our throat is not going to be relaxed until we break their grip.”

This was followed in September 2025 by an even more targeted DHS recruitment campaign from across streaming, influencer partnerships, and social media to reach an audience of “patriotic lifestyles”, gun rights organizations, and tactical gear brands with the following slogans alongside Uncle Sam and Norman Rockwell images:

• Protect Your Homeland. Defend Your Culture.

• Calvin Coolidge’s remark that “those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America.”

• America has been invaded by criminals and predators. We need you to get them out.

The first two steps were achieved while we were all growing more concerned about the militarization of immigration efforts on the streets of our cities, states’ rights, and the increasing cruelty. There were daily stories of cruelty and racial profiling that have seen citizens swept up in detention efforts. I won’t spend time rehashing what has already been covered in the media. This is available across a variety of news sources. What we might have needed to ask is who was being recruited by ICE, why, and what their training was.

What we missed is that they were moving to acting without immunity, consolidating that power. We have seen it now, blatantly, in the rush to demonize two American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights after they were murdered on the streets of an American city by masked, secretive federal police. There was no investigation into the details of the events, but a rush to gaslighting to make sure it was clear that DHS and ICE were immune from accountability. The images the administration thought best after Renee Good’s murder was to have Kristi Noem sport her ridiculously large caramel colored felt cowboy hat, obscuring the top half of her face like a poker player who has a tell they are trying to hide, immediately announce that the woman we saw on video saying “I’m not mad at you dude”, smiling while she turned the steering wheel of her car away from the officer, a domestic terrorist that deserved what happened. To be clear, the narrative would suggest she deserved to be shot in the head for driving away. We watched Noem and Gregory Bovino spin the same narrative about a man shot 10 times after having had his legally carried handgun removed from him. He had approached with his cell phone to assist another female protester being assaulted and pushed to the ground, his gun holstered, out of sight. Again, Alex Pretti, a Veterans Administration ICU nurse, was demonized as a domestic terrorist. DHS’s response to public backlash is to say they will conduct their own investigation. They have shut state law enforcement out of the investigative process. I refer readers to review the plethora of video evidence to assess whether any further investigative process is necessary. This, of course, comes after DHS announced a policy of warrantless entry into people’s homes to exercise detention efforts. There has been some walk-back verbally, but we have seen just such actions continue. This all seems to be the execution of the third step, policies to allow the police state to act with immunity, without consequences.

Then there is the strong man imperialism unfurling at the same time. Is it really any different or just another leg of the intimidation, strong-man blueprint? In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper following military action in Venezuela without Congressional approval and discussion of invading Greenland, Stephen Miller informed us in a condescending tone, “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.” He added, “Nobody is going to fight the United States military over Greenland,” and “We’re a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.” In response, in January 2026, Denmark, along with NATO allies France, Germany, and Sweden, initiated significant military mobilization to Greenland as a deterrent against potential U.S. attempts to acquire territory. Thus, proving Miller’s calculus wrong. There was never a change in the alternate options available for national security or in how we conduct ourselves as a superpower that also respects sovereignty. We had closed all but one of our military bases in Greenland after threat evaluations indicated that withdrawal was a prudent economic plan. We have always been able to engage this ally regarding the rare-earth minerals we need. One might ask whether a superpower that bullies allies is really best used. The response in DAVOS regarding the rupture in the world order would indicate the answer is “no”. Venezuela’s oil reserves are vast, but it is increasingly clear that there was no viable plan for how to increase the actual benefits of America’s oil industry. It remains an unstable region under the previous regime. For all the risk and cost, we are no better off as a result of the military action. And it is hard to believe the narco-terrorist angle when Trump pardoned the Ecuadorian president, an even bigger narco-terrorist.

So, we can quit asking “Why would the administration continue such an unpopular policy in light of these disastrous polls?” We are witnessing that the administration is confident in the execution of the Project 2025 blueprint, and now they can don the party hats and spread lies, thinking they can act without impunity. Integrity and relationships are clearly not as important as the appearance of an immature, dysfunctional sense of strength.

What is different from World War II is that we have video evidence, a world order established by NATO, a country where citizens still have protected First Amendment rights, and citizens who are willing to defend them. The questions to engage others are:

1. Do you demand substance and moral character from those you elect to do the job of representing your interests?

2. Do you require transparency and course correction when something is handled incorrectly?

3. How does this strong-man mentality keep us safe?

4. Are children, old men, and workers without criminal arrests being detained and deported wisely, using resources to rid us of “the worst of the worst, drug dealers and rapists”? Or is this just showboating?

5. Does might always make right if you are the one holding all the power already?

Subscribe now

Share

The U.S. Criminal Code 18 2331 (5) states that domestic terrorism depicts those engaging in activities that are (1) dangerous to human life and are violations of the criminal laws of the U.S. (2) activities which appear to intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (3) an attempt to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or (4) affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. The FBI defines domestic terrorism on its website as Americans who commit violence to achieve their goals that stem from domestic, extremist ideological influences, and lack foreign direction or influence (“Domestic Terrorism: Definitions, Terminology, and Methodology”).

A recent decree by Donald Trump expands the definition of domestic terrorism to include people who oppose the right-wing extremist agenda of the Trump regime. The regime, using the guise of purging the U.S. of illegal immigrants, seeks to advance its takeover of U.S. democratic institutions.

To accomplish this takeover, the Trump regime relies heavily on ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) headed by Kristi Noem with support from Stephen Miller. Noem and Miller have expanded ICE (using taxpayer dollars) into a paramilitary force used to terrorize and persecute Americans deemed undesirable by the Trump regime. The original premise Trump campaigned on was to rid the U.S. of illegal immigrants considered dangerous (drug runners, gang members, those involved in various illegal activities, etc.)

However, this roundup quickly became a problem. There were only so many immigrants matching that description. Once the Trump regime had rounded up this group and sent them to foreign countries (without due process) they began to have trouble meeting Stephen Millers demand to deport 3000 immigrants a day. Because the regime lied about the number of dangerous illegal immigrants, they had to villainize immigrants in the U.S. who did not meet that description. This includes immigrants in the U.S. working, paying taxes, waiting for their cases to be heard in court. This “villainizing” has now expanded into “just looking Hispanic.”

ICE is entering a whole new dimension now. Noem is recruiting unqualified individuals, offering $50,000 sign-up bonuses, reducing important training time, and allowing new hires to begin training before they are properly vetted. Recently, Miller made controversial remarks to ICE agents affirming their federal immunity in the conduct of their duties. (reported in New Republic, 1/14/2026).

ICE agents have been disguising their identity with masks and head gear, appearing on the streets in full military gear as though they were in combat. ICE agents have kidnapped people, prevented people from accessing family or lawyers, provided no “due process” and disappeared individuals. They have deported detainees to foreign countries with no possibility of recourse (e.g., the case of the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to a prison in El Salvador). The Trump regime maintained that the 238 men were all gang members. Reports indicated that Noem knew that 75% of these men had no criminal record in the U.S. or abroad. Also, some of them were asylum seekers with no violation of immigration law (ProPublica Investigative Unit, May 2025).

The unchecked illegal and unconstitutional conduct of ICE agents has now resulted in the direct killing of American citizens, especially those who push back or question their authority. A recent incident (R. Good) involved an ICE agent shooting a woman in the head because she would not get out of her car and attempted to drive away. He said she was driving at him with her car. Noem, without any evidence, instantly called the dead woman a domestic terrorist. Multiple reports which include analysis of video footage indicate that Good was driving away from the agent, not toward him. According to local police, Good was a 37-year-old mother of three, a U.S. citizen with no prior criminal record. There was no evidence that she belonged to any violent group.

Let us be clear: ICE agents have no authority to drag individuals from their homes, cars, or places of business without a federal warrant. As Chris Atchley reminded us on the Frends of Steve Schmidt website (Jan 12, 2026) ICE agents do not have general police powers. They are there to enforce immigration law, not to stop, detain, or command citizens. The 4^th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits unreasonable seizure. Blocking someone’s movements, trying to take control of their vehicle, or dragging them out of their vehicle, all without a legal basis, is unconstitutional.

There has now been yet another shooting leading to the death of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU Nurse. Because Noem needs to set the narrative before an investigation can be done, she and agents are claiming Pretti threatened them with a 9mm handgun. ICE published pictures of this gun. The Minneapolis Police Chief said that Pretti was a legal gun owner and did not have a criminal record. In Minnesota, Pretti was allowed open carry if he had a valid permit. Pretti did have a gun, but it was holstered and legal in Minnesota.

Witnesses to the event said, under oath, that Pretti was not brandishing a weapon. Analysis of videotape submitted from the scene shows Pretti holding a cell phone. He walks to the agents who are holding another protestor on the ground and attempts to confront them. They pepper spray him, six agents wrestle him to the ground, they spot his holstered gun, they take it away from him and, once subdued, they proceed to shoot him multiple times. Bystanders claim that instead of providing immediate medical attention, the agents appeared to be counting the bullet wounds!

For Good and Pretti’s killers deadly force had to be imminent or threat of death or bodily harm. There was NEVER any threat to any of the agents involved. They chose to use their number and weapons to murder American citizens.

So. Who are the domestic terrorists? Is it the unlawful thugs roaming the streets of our country, brutalizing, and intimidating citizens? Or is it the unsuspecting motorists or the ICE protestors? Any infractions committed by peaceful protestors do not compare in any way to the arrests, assaults, deaths, and illegal deportations engaged in by ICE agents. Agents who wear masks, sometimes full military gear, do not identify themselves, and do not carry legal warrants for arrest. These marginally or poorly trained individuals are allowed to roam the streets of the United States harassing, assaulting, kidnapping, and now murdering non-citizens and citizens alike.

Where is the accountability? Why are ICE agents involved in kidnapping not being arrested and held to account? Why are local law enforcement officers not arresting these lawless so-called “agents” for the murders of U.S. citizens. And, most importantly, do we have a right to defend ourselves against this unconstitutional brutality?

When American citizens, protesting the obvious cruelty and injustice of a publicly funded agency, have to be concerned with being shot and then the circumstances lied about by government officials, we are living in a country without constitutional protections, without laws, and without humane law enforcement. When we have a situation where US citizens must carry their birth certificates and passports around with them daily, we are living in a fascist state.

I contend that the domestic terrorists are ICE agents.

Those who voted for the current administration supported the purported policy of deporting the “worst of the worst” immigrants who are here illegally. For many, this was the primary reason for their vote. For others, promises of favorable economic policy were more convincing, but they (mistakenly) linked the presence of immigrants to an unfavorable economy or lack of job opportunities.

Unfortunately, many of the perceptions about the effects of immigrants—whether they entered the country legally or not—are inaccurate. This is due to a great deal of misinformation and targeted, malicious disinformation. Remember “they’re eating the dogs and the cats”? It was a deliberate smear against hard-working, legal Haitian residents of Springfield, Ohio. Today, it’s Somalis in Minnesota, whom Trump has labeled “garbage”. Please be skeptical when all immigrants from a specific country are painted with the same broad brush.

Let’s be clear: this kind of broad characterization of immigrant populations or people of color, many of whom are US citizens, is racist. No human being deserves to be called garbage.

Common Misinformation — and What’s Actually True

Relying on word-of-mouth reports and fictional racist narratives intended to instill outrage and garner political advantage is simply not responsible. It’s actually quite dangerous. Instead, let’s examine half a dozen of the more popular misperceptions that circulate widely with little or no basis in truth.

1. Misperception: Immigrants take jobs away from U.S.-born citizens.

Truth: Many immigrants fill jobs that native-born Americans do not want or are not available for — for example, in agriculture, construction, service industries, and other high-demand fields. Many immigrants also create jobs by starting businesses. (American Immigration Council)

2. Misperception: Immigrants don’t pay taxes.

Truth: Immigrants — including undocumented ones — pay income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property or rent taxes. Their tax contributions help fund government services even if they don’t all qualify for benefits. (American Immigration Council)

3. Misperception: Immigrants are a drain on public benefits / welfare.

Truth: Many immigrants — especially recent arrivals or undocumented migrants — are ineligible for many public benefit programs. And overall, immigrants contribute more in taxes and economic output than they receive in benefits. (National Immigration Law Center)

4. Misperception: Immigrants increase crime and make communities unsafe.

Truth: A robust body of research finds that immigrants (documented and undocumented) are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born residents. Areas with high immigrant populations often have lower crime rates. (Migration Policy) According to the CATO Institute, only 5% of ICE detainees have criminal convictions and 73% have no convictions. The percentage of detainees with no convictions has been growing steadily all year. The worst of the worst?

5. Misperception: There are more immigrants today than ever before in U.S. history.

Truth: Actually, we are all immigrants. However, the share of new immigrants in the U.S. population today (~14%) is similar to what it was during the major immigration waves of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. (Princeton Economics)

6. Misperception: Immigrants refuse to integrate, don’t want to assimilate or learn English.

Truth: Many immigrants make efforts to integrate — learn English, participate in civic life, start businesses, raise families, and contribute socially and economically. There is no evidence of a general unwillingness to assimilate. As a former ESL assistant teacher in Texas, I can personally attest to this one. Students in our classes were enthusiastic about learning English! (Jinhee Wilde Foundation)

Why These Misinformation Narratives Persist

Political rhetoric and media framing sometimes amplify fear — using examples of individual cases to generalize about entire immigrant populations. The prime example of this was the claim that Haitian refugees were eating their neighbor’s pets. First, it was never true of even one Haitian but generalizing it to all Haitians was cruel and disruptive—they were maligned to score political points only. The same may be said of the current uproar over Somali immigrants and alleged fraud. Some Somalis may have committed fraud, but it’s not fair to assume all Somalis commit fraud, any more than it would be to assume all University of Washington graduates are serial killers, because Ted Bundy attended the school.

These misconceptions often rely on simplistic or anecdotal reasoning rather than data. Scholars call this the Dillingham Flaw — when people use oversimplified categories or outdated comparisons to draw misleading conclusions about immigrants. The term was coined by sociologist Vincent N. Parrillo to describe flawed logic of nativists who wrongly assume newer immigrants are less capable of assimilating than “older” ones. Their assumptions are based on biased comparisons and focus on differences rather than similarities, creating a false sense of crisis that ignores historical context and the eventual integration of past groups. It stems from the early 20th-century Dillingham Commission’s biased reports, which, despite evidence, concluded “new” immigrants were undesirable, leading to restrictive policies like literacy tests and quotas. Sound familiar?

Finally, immigration is a complex phenomenon — involving labor markets, demographics, global movement, legal systems — which makes generalizations easy but often wrong. Finding the truth involves some work: consulting and analyzing multiple credible sources. As a researcher, I can tell you it’s time consuming and often frustrating. One of my grad school professors told our Journalism Research class: “Continue researching until you find the same ideas or evidence repeated in several credible sources. Then you can have confidence that you’ve found the best possible information.” The implication was that finding a couple of sources whose facts happen to coincide is just not adequate. Keep searching. And, of course, the trustworthiness of the sources matter also.

What Research and Data Show: A More Accurate Picture

• Immigrants help sustain the U.S. workforce and boost the economy, especially as the native-born workforce ages and birth rates decline.

• Immigrants contribute significantly in taxes, even if undocumented, often without ever being eligible for benefits.

• Immigrants are overwhelmingly law-abiding; higher immigrant populations often correlate with lower crime rates.

• Immigrants often become entrepreneurs or skilled workers — creating jobs, innovation, and economic growth, benefiting both immigrant and native-born populations.

One Immigrant Story

I have a personal experience that shapes my own perception about immigrants. Three years ago, a group of individuals from several area Presbyterian churches, including my own, chose to sponsor a Muslim Afghan family for resettlement in Texas. The family was migrating here shortly after the disastrous collapse of the Western Alliance in Afghanistan and just before the Taliban takeover. The family consists of a father, mother, and their six children. The father had worked for years with US forces as an interpreter and teacher of English to his countrymen, activities which posed a danger for him when the fledgling government failed.

Over the course of two years, dozens of people from the resettlement group offered financial contributions, material resources like a rent-free home, an older but drivable car, and assimilation support. My husband had a key role in the group, helping the family apply for the food benefits their visa classification legally entitled them to and helping the two eldest sons learn to drive. I sometimes provided transportation for the older children to or from school or jobs. I learned a great deal from them about persistence in the face of unbelievable hardship.

In return for our support, we were overwhelmed with Afghan hospitality. They are joyous and generous hosts! Every visit to their home was accompanied by fresh tea, nuts, dried fruits, and other snacks. The family is deeply appreciative of our support, while still grieving the loss of security in their homeland and separation from extended family. Today, the three oldest children in the family are attending college nearby and the father is securely employed as an IT contractor for a large technology company, with a side hustle providing computer technology services for several business clients.

This family faithfully pursued every step in the legal path to resident status. They just received their green cards—three days before the November shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., by an Afghan refugee. Even though the shooter had been vetted by the Trump administration earlier this year, the previous administration was falsely blamed for sloppy screening, and a ban is now imposed on accepting or processing Afghan nationals for residency. I’m delighted our new friends are now legal US residents but saddened for Afghans who cooperated with American forces and were promised safe refuge in the US, but who may never find it. They are now universally condemned by the actions of one ignorant man.

The Bottom Line About Immigrants to the US

The US is often called a country of immigrants, because as recently as three or four generations ago, the population consisted primarily of citizens who immigrated from other countries. However, most of us alive today are considered “immigrant derived.” My own paternal great-grandparents immigrated from Germany and Poland at the end of the 19^th century. My grandparents and parents were born in the US, as I was. However, I am proud of my heritage, as most Americans are of theirs.

It’s foolish to presume that Americans are monolithic. We are diverse. We are who we are because of what we inherited from our immigrant ancestors, wherever they migrated from. We share elements of our cultures with our neighbors, enriching us all. American culture is a “melting pot” of many cultures, despite many who insist there is one American culture to preserve.

When you hear fear-mongering speech that warns against the dangers of an entire immigrant population, please be responsible enough to search out the facts. When you hear friends or colleagues complain about “filthy” immigrants “soaking the system” or “stealing American jobs,” please provide them with relevant facts that disrupt the misinformation they’ve bought into.

The H-2A visa program is a set of regulations that allows employers to bring foreign nationals into the United States to perform agricultural work. H-2A workers perform temporary or seasonal agricultural jobs, primarily planting, cultivating, and harvesting crops like fruits, vegetables, and nursery plants, but also tasks like pruning, operating farm equipment, tending livestock, packing produce, and maintaining farm infrastructure. Employers must prove there is a lack of available U.S. workers for the jobs and that H-2A workers won’t negatively impact the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers.

There is a strong connection between the Trump administration’s intensified deportation efforts of undocumented immigrants and the surge of H-2A visa workers coming to America. With the Trump deportations, farm owners are left with no workers to harvest their crops. H-2A visa workers are the solution and are being imported into the US at an alarming rate to meet this need.

In 2023, Prism, Futuro Investigates, and Latino USA, found many labor rights violations against H-2A workers. Centro de los Derechos del Migrante found that 100% of H-2A workers interviewed experienced at least one serious legal violation, and 94% experienced three or more. Although H-2A workers are in the US legally, they are being abused and deprived of basic human rights.

The Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS) oversee the H-2A visa program. DOL, the main regulatory agency, has failed to enforce their rules and provide adequate oversight for these workers. Further, at this time, DOL is now proposing changes to rules passed in 2024 which will rescind more employer requirements further reducing worker rights. The DOL proposes using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics Survey (OEWS) to calculate the H-2A program’s Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR). This rule revises agricultural wage rates for all 50 states and Puerto Rico allowing for different wage rates for different qualifications. This will result in wage reductions for H-2A visa workers but save employers about $2.46 billion in wages. How can this be fair?

Currently H-2A workers are only allowed to reside in the U.S. for three years, then they must leave the country. After three months they can apply for another H-2A visa if they want to return. Increasingly employers are taking advantage of this requirement by charging a processing fee for H-2A applications and transportation back into the U.S. Workers are further charged for housing and food essentially leaving them in debt and indentured.

Crisanto Serrano, a legal immigrant from Sunnyside, California, worked for a mushroom company for over 40 years. When he went back in January to put in his application to be called back to work, his application was canceled. Farm businesses are now only contracting H-2A workers.

To illustrate: in 2021, Frank Javier Zavala Martinez was recruited in Mexico to work for Manzana in Connecticut. Zavala worked for three years as an H-2A worker. Upon arrival, he found that living conditions were substandard and was a shed in a labor camp with over 200 workers sleeping on air mattresses or bunk beds separated by garbage bags. Raising concerns with his employer, he was told, “Well, if you don’t like it, you can find somewhere else to live.” Zavala worked for up to 60 hours/week at Casertano Greenhouses with no holidays or time off. Zavala became suspicious when he discovered Manzana was charging workers for reapplications and transport to America. Zavala had to take out a high-interest loan to cover his travel costs — which should have been provided by his employer — and was later charged fees to be recruited back the following season. Workers have no transportation so they must buy their food and other items from the employer’s stores with inflated prices. Most workers had to go into debt and take out interest loans to cover housing and food expenses.

According to the most recent National Agricultural Workers Survey, 70% of our agricultural workers are immigrants. A USDA survey found approximately 300,000 H-2A workers in 2022, a 15% increase from 2021, and a 300% increase since 2012. Estimates of 350,000-380,000 were allowed in in 2024 and an estimated 600,000 will be brought in by the end of 2025. These hundreds of thousands of workers are tied to a single employer for their worker’s immigration status leading to conditions resembling forced labor.

On July 20, 2022, Daniel Costa with Economic Policy Institute testified before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protection in the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor. Costa testified that despite numerous and egregious cases of worker abuse, exploitation, human trafficking, wage theft and even deaths Congress and federal agencies failed to protect these workers.

To address some of these issues, DOL in 2024 published the Farmworker Protection Rule to shield workers from employer retaliation, prohibit employers from confiscating passports and exclude employers from the program who commit violations. Sadly, DOL is now proposing changes to this rule rescinding many of its protections.

The current administration is apparently setting up a system like indentured servitude or sharecropping to counteract the effect of immigrant farm workers being deported out of the country. Unfortunately, there has been no substantial legislation passed to regulate employers and address the ongoing abuse of these workers. With the steady increase of H-2A visa workers into the United States, it is imperative we demand our legislators file and pass laws to hold abusive employers responsible for violations against H-2A workers. We should all demand protection for H-2A visa workers who harvest the food we put on our table. We should not allow companies to flourish at the cost of human rights!

Subscribe now

Share

“I don’t want to hear about the affordability, because right now we’re much less,” Donald J. Trump.

This was Trump’s response to a journalist’s question in the East Room of the White House on November 6th, after Americans took to the polls in a resounding vote to express their views on the affordability of life in our current economic climate. He followed this up with a series of similar tweets indicating things are the best they have ever been, even suggesting “affordability” is some nasty “new word” invented by the Democrats. I will add that perhaps we all agree that “we’re much less” if what is meant is that we are a country with less stability in the foundational necessities for success. Currently, it feels like many Americans are just trying to achieve the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy, often barely. We know what we are experiencing…don’t we?

In case you missed Truthify’s piece “The Current Weaponization of Gaslighting”, gaslighting in a political context refers to the act of manipulating public perception by denying or downplaying observable realities, thereby causing confusion, doubt, and distrust. Let’s consider the gaslighting behavior on display and what that means for solutions to complex economic issues. Here is the list of gaslighting behaviors on display in his response to questions about affordability:

Denial: Asserting that affordability is not a significant issue or that economic indicators are being misrepresented.

· Countering or Blame Shifting: Attributing rising costs to previous administrations, foreign entities, or external factors beyond his control.

· Deflection: Shifting focus to subjects like immigration or resolved wars that he feels highlight strength or control.

· Trivializing: Downplaying the impact of affordability concerns by suggesting that the media or political opponents are exaggerating the problem for their own gain.

Gaslighting, as a rhetorical device, can be a powerful tool for authoritarian figures seeking to control the narrative. The need to trivialize, counter, deny, and deflect in this manner means a refusal to engage in substantive discussions that lead to solutions. Gaslighting essentially deflects the problem to be solved, burying it in the miasma of propaganda. How do we solve problems when those in power refuse to acknowledge its very existence?

Affordability is a genuine concern that requires acknowledgement to address the problem. The denial of the affordability crisis began with Trump’s claim that the cost of a Walmart Holiday meal was 25% lower than in 2024. The problem with this countering narrative is that it leaves out a critical comparator. There were six fewer items in that Walmart Holiday meal package, including the elimination of fresh produce. It is also a very superficial barometer of what is being experienced regularly. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), groceries for a family of four in 2025 range from $567 to $1,296 per month, which comes out to approximately $130 to $300 per week. This reflects roughly a 3.2% increase in August 2025 compared to 2024. There is a record-high median age of first-time home buyers (40 in 2025), a low first-time buyer market share (21% in 2025), and lower ownership rates than past generations at the same age. Gen Z at ownership is 24% and Millennials around 43-55%, often needing to work multiple jobs or move to cheaper areas to achieve ownership. There is a growing industry response with luxury home rental neighborhoods developed by apartment home developers, locking more young people into rental property without the ability to build equity. In addition, homelessness rates continue to rise.

With the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies set to expire at the end of 2025, more than 20 million Americans buying individual market insurance will see significant premium hikes, with some facing doubled costs. Millions will potentially lose coverage, as part-time workers, gig workers, and self-employed individuals are affected, particularly low- to middle-income and older adults. There are already families making the difficult decision not to have health insurance. At the same time, recent 2025 data shows that roughly 37-40% of Americans can’t afford a $400-$1,000 emergency from savings alone, often relying on credit or loans. Lower-income families face greater hurdles. These are only a few of the factors that underpin how Americans are experiencing whether life is affordable. They signal a complex failure of infrastructure to create the foundation required for businesses to emerge and thrive, for families to succeed, and for better futures for their children.

Since the Walmart holiday meal denial, the denial of our own lived experience has continued to escalate. Trump even claims that this is all a Democratic hoax and that Democrats invented a “new word”, affordability. Even that is a denial of reality. I’m pretty sure affordability has been defined in Webster’s for quite a long time. The questions we should ask others in conversation are about their real, lived experiences. How do they feel that there is a denial of those experiences? How are problems solved when the problem is denied? What do they expect of their elected officials to “promote the general Welfare” as promised in the Preamble of the Constitution?

Keep joining us at Truthify to consider the impact of gaslighting, promote conversation, and empower individuals.

Some of the positive changes protests can initiate are:

· Increased public awareness and national dialogue

· Strengthened democratic participation

· Giving voice to marginalized groups

· Promoting solidarity and collective identity

· Holding government and institutions accountable

· Shifting public opinion

· Inspiring future activism and leadership

Protests are more likely to succeed when well-organized, and there were an estimated 2600 organized events in October alone. One area group, Hands Off Central Texas, has been instrumental in recent protests across the Texas Capital area. The following essay by Paul Vonder Haar describes the keys to their success in organizing protests that make a difference.

Austin’s No King’s Day was a triumph of grassroots organizing. Despite the heat and unfriendly attention from the state and federal governments, tens of thousands of Texans came out to express their displeasure with the strains of authoritarian practices taking hold in our society. They came out expressing a joy that is not often seen today. A spirit of camaraderie and unity permeated the entire event, dispelling a murky fog induced by a perpetual storm of bad news and doomscrolling.

Our rally on Oct. 18 had the nation’s 5th largest No Kings attendance. It was twice as large as the sister event in Houston, making it the largest in Texas. Punching well above its weight, Austin is the 13th largest city in the country and number four in Texas.

Credit goes to the process used to organize and promote the event. Hands Off Central Texas, the group behind No Kings in Austin, is a “show-up-ocracy.” It’s run by — and for — those who want to show up to it. Partnering with groups such as the League of Women Voters, Indivisible, or people off the street, we empower them to take action. We notice problems and opportunities. If we can find someone to work them, we work them. There’s no hierarchy, no complicated structure — just a few basic rules of engagement and a lot of trust.

A culture of shared leadership provides the raw material for a new type of activism. After dozens of big and small events, we developed a deep bench of organizers invested in making No Kings our best event yet. We had a great mix of people, some with many years or experience and others who learned by doing. They all were willing to speak up when they had a good idea and step up to help make someone else’s vision come true.

No Kings Day was an organizational problem in need of creative solutions from an all-volunteer team. We knew we would draw a massive crowd of people who shared only loose connections with one another. Some attendees wanted to march. Others did not. All of those coming together held slightly different worldviews. Progressives, moderates, the old, the young, immigration activists, education advocates, trans crusaders, and more were coming together to voice their concerns about our government’s actions. Our primary challenge was to create a forum where a group so diverse in ideology and background could get what they needed from one event. In fact, diversity in organization was key to our success, offering three key advantages.

First, we were able to give the event real purpose. Critics of No Kings Day have said such protests can feel pointless. You show up, march, go “rah rah” and then go home, accomplishing nothing. At this event, we created a forum where individuals could connect with groups that share their passions. Thousands of people could plug into various organizations, potentially triggering a tsunami of new small acts of activism — writing post cards, voter registration, or simply committing to attend a meeting. It offered an on-ramp to the world of political activism to thousands of individuals looking for a way to better their community.

Second, every volunteer wrangling organizations into these villages could proceed in their work without the supervision of a central boss. There were people around who could help. But mostly we were able to leverage their passion and work without micromanaging. It takes a village! And sometimes it takes many villages.

Finally, the guest organizations provided infrastructure, connections, and turned out their base. We didn’t need to reach the unions and ask them to come. They already were there. Multiply that by 60, and it’s hard to imagine someone who wasn’t at least two or three degrees removed from someone volunteering for the event. Casting a wide net drove our attendance and participation levels higher.

The success of No Kings on Oct 18 was not an accident. Nor is it the end. Thousands of new activists are joining organizations, adding their energy and interest to dozens of causes. Six months ago, at the Hands Off rally that gives our organization its name, I couldn’t imagine exceeding the 10,000 attendees that we had then. Compared to the recent No Kings event in Austin, that initial rally seems quaint in comparison. We believe the next national day of action will be even bigger. That will happen because the people who show up deserve to be in charge. Hands Off Central Texas is dedicated to this simple principle of show-up-ocracy.

For Hands Off Central Texas and any other organizer of political protests, it’s clear that building engagement and buy-in from a broad range of participants is reminding them of the value of their actions. As many as 20,000 or more were motivated to act on No Kings 2 Day in Central Texas alone, demonstrating that large numbers of Texans care deeply about creating a democracy that works for all. If you’ve heard the question, as I have, “What good does a protest do?” you can refer to the benefits listed above and be assured that while change may happen slowly, your voice and your actions do count.

In a year when the headlines are full of tariff battles, border crackdowns, and partisan bickering over who deserves help, the real fight for our future is happening right here in Williamson County — in our grocery aisles, farmers markets, and food pantries.

Every policy that raises prices or cuts nutrition assistance hits our neighbors first: the single parent choosing between milk and gas, the retiree quietly skipping a meal to stretch a fixed income, the farmer trying to keep a family business alive through another round of “market adjustments.” These aren’t abstract economic ripples — they’re human consequences.

That’s why local matters more than ever. Buying from area farms, supporting small grocers like Hayley’s Grains in Taylor, and volunteering with food banks or community gardens isn’t charity — it’s an act of resistance. It’s how we push back against systems that put profit and politics above people.

If you’ve ever wondered how to make a difference amid the noise, start here:

· Volunteer at your local food pantry or mobile food distribution.

· Donate to local programs (In Central Texas, search here for programs)

· Shop local whenever possible — every dollar recirculated in WilCo strengthens our shared safety net.

As Democrats, we talk a lot about equity and opportunity. But food — the most basic human right — is where those ideals take root. What happens next depends on whether we’re willing to roll up our sleeves and feed our own community.

In the early days of the pandemic, Hayley Blundell launched a small business in Taylor: sell grains by weight and see if the community responded.

“I started in 2021 … really small, kind of risk-free,” she told me. “If it worked, then I’d have a business — and if it didn’t, I’d have grains for the next three years.”

People did respond. With grocery shelves bare and global shipping stalled, shoppers rediscovered local markets. “Farmers markets definitely saw growth,” Hayley recalled. “It was safer to shop outdoors, and I think COVID really made people realize the importance of buying local.”

Her store, Hayley’s Grains, grew from a refill-only concept into a community grocery focused on quality and proximity. “It became pretty clear that refill wasn’t what Taylor was looking for,” she said. “People wanted high-quality products that weren’t as processed or coming from so far away.”

She now sources produce across Texas and partners with distributors that support small farms. “Farm-to-Table was kind of an answer to all my problems — they let me buy in quantities that make sense, because I don’t have a ton of storage, and they are great at making sure the food is high quality and responsibly sourced”

Tariffs: When “Far Away” Costs Hit Close to Home

This year, tariffs emerged as a new challenge. “Tariffs were a really big concern at the beginning of the year,” Hayley explained. “I bring in high-quality pantry items from Italy, Greece, Thailand — some directly from Japan — and the tariffs definitely pushed those prices up.”

Even her Texas-made goods aren’t immune. “Products made in the U.S., especially from small businesses, often get their packaging materials overseas. That’s increased prices here as well,” she said.

The squeeze shows on the shelves. “Everything’s more expensive — fewer people coming in, smaller baskets. This summer I could really only keep produce, dairy, and meat stocked; the rest of the shelves were pretty bare.”

Hayley wishes more people understood that “buying American” alone can’t offset inflation. “We can all buy from the U.S., and that’s great,” she said, “but then supply and demand will just increase the cost of those products. It doesn’t automatically make things cheaper.”

Beyond Prices: Community, Policy, and Food Security

While tariffs raise costs, Hayley keeps her focus on neighbors helping neighbors. Her store runs a Pay It Forward program — donations that go directly toward groceries for local families navigating recent SNAP reductions and rising food insecurity. It’s a simple system built on trust: when customers give, others eat. Learn more or contribute at www.hayleysgrainstx.com.

“Every dollar spent here stays here,” Hayley said. “It supports farmers, keeps small businesses alive, and helps us all weather the next disruption — whatever it is.”

Why does all this matter?

The truth is, food insecurity isn’t a partisan issue — but the policies that create it often are. When Washington plays tariff roulette and Texas slashes SNAP, it’s our local farmers, grocers, and families who pay the price. The people on the ground — folks like Hayley Blundell, who built Hayley’s Grains out of hope and hard work — are holding the line while others debate whether help is “deserved.”

We don’t have to wait for Congress to fix it. We can strengthen our own food systems right here in WilCo — by funding local agriculture programs, electing leaders who believe feeding families is non-negotiable, and showing up for one another through the hard seasons. Every volunteer shift, every local dollar spent, every shared meal is a quiet act of democracy — proof that when we care for our neighbors, we build the kind of county, and country, worth fighting for.

About Hayley’s Grains

Hayley’s Grains, located on Main Street in Taylor, Texas, is a neighborhood grocery offering Texas-grown produce, local meats, and responsibly sourced pantry staples.

On September 25, 2025, Donald Trump declared Antifa a left-wing terrorist organization. He stated, “I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices.”

There are several problems with this declaration. There is no official organization known as Antifa; there is no membership list; there is no spokesperson or leader, and there is no central base of operation. Although the Trump administration presents Antifa as a huge, organized group, it is not. The anti-fascist movement in the United States is a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists. Depending on the region and issues at hand, these activists may or may not mobilize. The only self-proclaimed anti-fascist group is the Rose City Antifa group, born in 2007 in Portland, Oregon. While the Rose City group is one concrete example, the anti-fascist movement is very decentralized, involving many loose groups and individuals.

Antifa is short for antifascism. Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian ideology that prioritizes the nation or race over the individual. According to historian Robert Paxton in " Anatomy of Fascism", the motivating force behind fascism is the chosen group’s right to dominate others without restraint from human or divine law. A fascist government is founded on the belief in a natural social hierarchy. Fascist dictatorships are typically led by a cult-like figure who uses propaganda and violence to maintain control. Fascist governments maintain control by engaging in forcible suppression of opposition and frequently demonize other groups such as immigrants, certain races, sexual/ gender minorities, and their political opponents. In Italy and Germany, fascist leaders and their collaborators formed secret police forces to exile, jail, or murder opponents.

The struggle against fascism has persisted for decades, dating back to the rise of fascist dictators such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, who persecuted those who opposed them. The term “Antifa” is borrowed from the German “Antifaschistisch Aktion” (1932-33), a group formed as a reaction to Nazism.

Historian Mark Bray, who has written a book on Antifa, states that anti-fascists in the U.S. are opposed to Neo-Nazis, Neo-fascists, white supremacists, and racism. However, in these times, they include the alt-right. The UCLA College of Social Sciences in their study on “hate” include the following groups in the term Alt-right (populists, white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-confederates, and neo-nazis). In conversation with Antifa sympathizers in Oregon, Bray was told that they are witnessing a build up of authoritarianism in the Trump administration and they seek to build “a movement that insulates us from the policies of Donald Trump”.

The term antifa and antifa-related actions gained prominence during Trump’s first term, particularly following the events in Charlottesville in 2017. The “Unite the Right” rally was organized by white supremacists to protest the removal of the statue of the Confederate General Robert E. Lee. On the eve of the rally, white supremacists, members of the KKK, and neo-Nazis marched through the streets of Charlottesville carrying torches and chanting “you will not replace us.” The following day, counter-protestors arrived to oppose this demonstration of white supremacy. The confrontation escalated, resulting in a member of the far right driving his car into the crowd of protestors.

It is important to acknowledge the possible threat to free speech and peaceful assembly that is posed by the Trump administration declaring Antifa a left-wing terrorist organization. This declaration could signal the administration’s intent to target other liberal, progressive, or left-wing organizations. White House officials have commented on the need to scrutinize left-wing, non-profit groups. Stephen Miller, Trump’s top policy advisor, called the Democratic Party a “domestic, extremist organization” (Fox News, Sean Hannity show, August 25, 2025).

Mark Bray made the following observation in 2017. …”given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it’s clear to me that organized collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response but, lamentably, an all-too-necessary response…”.

Engaging in Dialogue: Planting the Seed

One approach to discussing Antifa with supporters of MAGA

1. Share your interest in this group

2. Ask the person what they think Antifa means?

3. Assure the individual that Antifa is not a terrorist organization but a collection of individuals spread far and wide in the US that are sometimes motivated to act.

4. Mention the incident in Charlottesville where young men carrying torches and wearing Nazi symbols marched in the streets chanting “you will not replace us” and “Blood and Soil” a Nazi slogan.

5. Ask the person what they think was meant by that chant?

Although the freedom to speak freely has been recognized as a basic human right, there are a few limits to this freedom in the US. Threatening or incendiary speech can often be considered illegal. Unfortunately, many in the current administration are stretching the definitions of prohibited speech to include speech they disagree with—the very situation the First Amendment was designed to prevent. This brings up important questions. Who decides what speech is threatening? Whose speech is protected?

Apparently, the current administration is of the opinion that only their speech is protected and all other speech they disagree with is “terrorist,” or “fascist,” or “woke” (worse than the other two). As a result, a great deal of energy has been put into stifling our exercise of the First Amendment.

So far in 2025, the administration has curtailed many of the rights we have taken for granted:

1. Continuing wave of library book challenges / bans (2024–25 school year; documented through 2025)
   Summary: Multiple organizations (PEN America, ALA, ACLU) documented thousands of book-removal or challenge instances in the 2024–25 cycle, with certain states (Florida, Texas, Tennessee) especially active — a development widely characterized as a nationwide curtailment of students’ access to ideas and literature. PEN America

2. Supreme Court decision about state regulation of online adult content (Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton) — limits and new tests for online age-verification (June 27, 2025)
   Summary: The Court held Texas’s age-verification law survived intermediate scrutiny (affirming lower court). The opinion clarified when states may regulate online content to protect minors — an outcome that advocates say could legitimize broader state controls that incidentally burden adult access to online speech. Supreme Court

3. State anti-protest bills; surge in laws restricting demonstrations (2025)
   Summary: Numerous state legislatures introduced or advanced bills in 2025 that supporters described as public-order measures and critics described as criminalizing common protest tactics (e.g., “cumulative” protest measures, heightened penalties). Advocacy groups warned these bills could chill lawful protest and assembly. The Guardian

4. University / campus restrictions and restraints on protests and expression (2025)
   Summary: Several high-profile campus episodes in 2025 produced state laws or system rules (and immediate litigation). Example: courts temporarily enjoined enforcement of Texas campus restrictions after students challenged statutes they said broadly suppressed campus expressive activity. These cases highlight friction between protests (e.g., Gaza-related demonstrations in spring 2025) and new campus limits. Statesman

5. Documented arrests, detentions, and assaults of journalists covering 2025 protests
   Summary: Trackers and press-freedom watchdogs reported numerous incidents in 2025 in which reporters were detained, arrested, or assaulted while covering protests — practices that press advocates say impede newsgathering and chill press freedom. (Dozens of incidents reported through mid/late 2025.) U.S. Press Freedom Tracker

6. Government revocation of visas for foreign nationals for offensive social-media posts (October 2025 reporting; related legal/free-speech debate ongoing in 2025)
   Summary: The U.S. State Department (2025 reporting) revoked visas for several foreign nationals after public posts that celebrated the killing of a U.S. activist — provoking debate about surveillance of social media, extraterritorial speech policing, and speech-related due process for noncitizens lawfully present or applying to come to the U.S. Politico

7. Reports and conferences warning of “normalization” of censorship trends (2025 reports)
   Summary: Civil-liberties groups and research organizations published 2025 reports documenting how coordinated campaigns, official pressure, and new laws produced an environment where censorship (especially in schools/libraries and online) has become more normalized. These reports synthesize thousands of individual incidents and legal changes across the year.

8. Appeals-court and lower-court rulings on student speech and school dress codes (2025)
   Summary: Courts in 2025 issued rulings about school authorities’ ability to regulate student clothing and messages. Some rulings uphold school bans on vulgar political expressions while protecting other political speech, underscoring the tricky balance of student First Amendment protections in K–12 settings. As long as individual districts can interpret what is “vulgar” or unacceptable “political” speech, there will be inconsistency in such bans. While “Make America Great Again” apparel has been considered acceptable, some Pro-LGBTQ clothing has been banned; these are only a few examples. (See appellate reporting on “Let’s Go Brandon” shirt cases and other school-speech cases in 2025.)

9. The Pentagon’s new press rules (Oct. 6, 2025)

Summary: Rolled out under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, these rules require journalists to acknowledge that they may lose Pentagon credentials if they solicit or publish unauthorized information (even if unclassified), submit to security screenings, remain escorted inside certain areas, and accept Pentagon-approved boundaries on access. Nearly all major U.S. media organizations refused to sign the agreement, many returning their press badges and vacating Pentagon workspaces in protest; only fringe outlets like One America News accepted the terms. Journalists and press groups have denounced the rules as an unprecedented infringement on press freedom and a threat to accountability.

Sadly, these are not the only examples. The above items mix court decisions, state legislative activity, reported enforcement actions, and civil-society reporting — each reflects a different mechanism by which speech access or press freedoms have been narrowed or contested in 2025.

This administration is less than a year old. How many more incidents might we see before the end of this Trump term? Before the end of this year? The pace of free speech limitations seems to be accelerating, with a very small group of people defining what is and is not acceptable. We need to support organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and others that can file suit against the administration. We must protect our basic right to express ourselves and dissent when necessary. To do so, we must remain vigilant.

Subscribe now

The term “gaslighting” originates from the title of a 1938 British play called Gas Light, written by Patrick Hamilton. The play was later adapted into films in 1940 and 1944. In the story, a husband manipulates his wife into believing she is losing her sanity by subtly altering elements of their environment, such as dimming the gas lights, and then denying that any change has occurred when she notices. His constant denial of her perceptions leads her to doubt her own reality, driving her to a nervous breakdown.

Over time, “gaslighting” evolved from its popular culture zeitgeist to describe a specific form of psychological manipulation. The American Psychological Association defines gaslighting as the manipulation of another person into doubting their perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events. In clinical literature, it is the manipulative tactics associated with antisocial narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissists use this to be the person in control of a “truth” they construct to manipulate, and it is a form of brainwashing.

There are four types of gaslighting:

• Lying: outright falsehoods, such as denying something happened even though there is proof that it did occur.

• Denial: refusal to acknowledge facts, events, or responsibilities. It takes the form of simply insisting their version of events is the truth.

• Trivializing: minimizing or dismissing a person’s feelings and experiences, often claiming the person is overreacting.

• Countering: questioning others’ memory, sanity, or cognitive ability.

Is this all starting to seem eerily familiar? It should. Propaganda techniques are described in literature in the following ways, not dissimilar from the four types of “gaslighting”:

• Persistent strategic patterns of lying and denial.

• Weaponized misinformation

• Attacking trusted sources to undermine the credibility of independent experts and information that challenges the propaganda. The goal is to isolate citizens from outside influences.

• Projection in which opponents are accused of the same deceptive tactics that the gaslighter is using to create more confusion.

• Wear-down effect, the strategy of “flooding the zone” that Steve Bannon has touted to repeat false or misleading information in volume to induce “gaslight fatigue”.

Gaslighting, used as a strategy for political manipulation and designed to mislead and create confusion, is propaganda. Propaganda weaponizes misinformation to make it harder to distinguish truth from fiction. It uses gaslighting techniques to rally people around an ideology or cause rooted in the consolidation of power.

Here’s the part where you acknowledge your experiences and reality, and the impacts of the “wear down effect”. You are NOT losing your mind. You don’t have faulty perceptions. This regime is using an active propaganda playbook. Social media algorithms amplify the strategy. The public has been conditioned only to consume, not evaluate. Information is presented in short sound bites, extricated from a larger context.

There is some neuroscience behind why gaslighting and propaganda work. We are hard-wired for collaboration in a process that Dr. Dan Siegel calls integration. Our minds seek ways to attune communication to foster trust. These same principles make people more susceptible to cult-like dynamics. Emphasizing attunement may limit skepticism or dissent, leading people to conform rather than challenge. When integration is framed as a moral or spiritual ideal, people might feel pressured to conform to the group’s definition of being integrated.

So, how do we help others seek some healthy skepticism and challenge the propaganda being weaponized against them? How do we evaluate information even when attuned to others who seem to have a healthy dose of skepticism and dissent with which we agree?

Here are some ways to put information through a filter to ask if it might be propaganda and suggest that others use the same evaluative measures:

• Is there a pattern of denial and dismissal of your experiences or visual confirmation of events?

• Is this part of a pattern of using one event or occurrence as a means of denying larger patterns that are not consistent with that one example?

• Are there potentially other details that have been left out of the narrative or explanation? Are there other explanations that haven’t been allowed to be considered?

• Does the information provided contain a lot of hyperbolic references without actual data, numbers, or qualifiers, such as “all”, “everyone”, “100%”, “No one”, “the whole world”?

• Does the message state or imply that if you disagree or want more information, there is something wrong with you?

• Does belief in a message, denial, or dismissal provide someone with power?

What protective practices can we implement to counter propaganda? The following are a few suggestions beyond a healthy dose of asking the probing questions that require data, detail, and context:

• Notice if your opinions or feelings are being silenced for the sake of “harmony”. . Maintain your own independent thought and critical thinking while connecting with others.

• Encourage questioning and reflection. Help others explore the details they may not be considering. Ask yourself to do this as well.

• Heighten awareness of power dynamics. Ask yourself and others to be attentive to transparency or the lack of it. Ask whether decisions and interpretations are open to group input, or centered on one “knowing” person?

• Ask how you or others might be isolated from others by buying into the propaganda.

• Seek and encourage communities that honor imperfection, nuance, and continual learning.

We all want to ensure we are evaluating information, not being gaslit. Yet so many are susceptible. Hopefully, this provides some ways to frame this for others to assess the quality of information they are receiving and the motivation of the messaging.

My Protest Posse and I headed to downtown Austin Saturday afternoon for the biggest street party I’ve ever attended. Three spouses of posse members drove separately, making a group of ten once we met up at Auditorium Shores, a park across the Colorado River and a short way from the Texas State Capitol. Most of the afternoon’s events, tables, and booths were at the park.

We were equipped with our “No Kings,” “Beware of Snakes...in Washington,” and “We the People” signs, flags, hats, and plenty of water. The heat was oppressive but the atmosphere was joyful. It was energizing to recognize so many like-minded people in the same place. People who were positive, nonviolent, and kind to each other, but deeply serious about preventing our nation’s slide into authoritarianism.

The Posse found shade under a huge oak tree where it was hard to hear speakers and musicians clearly who spoke from across the park, but it was too hot to stand on the green in front of the bandstand. It was enough to enjoy the street party vibes and witness so many patriots in one place in one frame of mind. The inflatable dragon, frog, and shark costumes were pretty cute, too.

The official protest began at the Capitol building and then protestors marched the 1.5 miles down Congress Avenue, along Cesar Chavez St., and across the 1^st Street bridge that spans the river, adjacent to Auditorium Shores. We went directly to the park, rather than meeting everyone at the Capitol, because we’re a bunch of old ladies with creaky knees and achy hips. However, four of us met the marchers on Cesar Chavez to walk the last half mile or so with the leading edge of marchers. It was phenomenal!

Once we returned to the park and assembled under our shade tree, we watched marchers stream across the bridge for a half hour or more. There were an estimated 20,000 – 30,000 people in all. Nationwide, there were seven to eight million people in around 2500 different locations. Several foreign countries also marched in solidarity with us. A great turnout, making our message clear: No kings in America!

Governor Abbott mobilized the National Guard for the protests, but the Austin Mayor negotiated with him to keep Guard members on standby at nearby Camp Mabry. There was no need for them. Law enforcement was friendly and helpful, as far as I could tell. They closed the streets on the march path and a line of motorcycle cops led the marchers all the way to the bridge. There were no incidents reported by the police. In fact, they posted their thanks on Facebook to the organizers and citizens for a peaceful event.

I don’t consider myself an activist, but this is the fourth protest I’ve attended this year. Participating with good friends means each event becomes a social occasion, but realizing so many other central Texans are concerned about our country makes my heart swell, enhancing my resolve to dissent. We are united, as the march chant proclaims. “We are united; we will not be divided!”

I was sweaty and exhausted by the time I got home but satisfied that I’d spent my day well. There was so much nasty rhetoric in advance about the so-called “Hate America” rally that I admit to some trepidation—some people seem eager to provoke violence to justify their own violent behavior. I’m really proud of those who came out on No Kings 2.0 day, to a nonviolent display of solidarity. We had a fabulous street party. Why wouldn’t everyone choose that over hatred and cruelty toward their neighbors?

Indivisible 1431 hosted a panel discussion on October 12 to address changes to healthcare under the current administration. You can check it out on YouTube. The information the panel presented was beyond a wake-up call. More like getting a bucket of ice water in the face.

The excellent panelists were:

• Lynn Cowles, Director of Health and Food Justice, Every Texan

• Dr. Christine Eady Mann, family practice doctor, political activist, former Congressional candidate

• Dr. Karen Van Matre Smith, award-winning family medicine specialist with published research

• Jan Lance, President, Austin Chapter of Texas Alliance of Retired Americans (moderator)

Thanks to the Big Ugly Bill (BUB), aka HR1, Medicaid will largely be dumped on to the states. This could put Texas on the hook for as much as $700 billion (yes with a “B”) for SNAP, noted moderator Lance. She added that the Legislature could kill SNAP, if the Lege finds that cost exorbitant. Think they won’t?

Remember: Texas already has the highest uninsured rate for adults and also for kids.

Fighting “waste, fraud and abuse” is the alleged rationale for many of the initiatives from the Trump Administration that are destructive to healthcare for everyday Americans. But it’s based on false assumptions.

“We don’t really have beneficiary fraud in Medicaid or in Medicare. It’s hard enough to get into these systems,” said Ms. Cowles.

While praising the good things Texas insurance companies provide, Ms. Cowles pointed out that most waste, fraud, and abuse in health care systems comes from either insurance companies or providers.

Nationally, Medicaid pays for about 60% of nursing home residents, and that might be higher in Texas. As RFK Jr and his flunky Dr Mehmet Oz savage Medicaid, will grandma wind up in the street?

It is not only health professionals and patients who are concerned. Dr Eady Mann reported that at least one hospital sports ACA QR Codes in patient rooms. This is encouragement for patients to call the feds with their concerns.

“When a healthcare entity encourages patients to call their Congressmen, they’re in trouble,” Dr. Eady Mann said. “It’s mind blowing to me.”

If you are not on Medicare or Medicaid, are you optimistic about the future of your healthcare benefits? Not so fast, cautioned Dr. Eady Mann.

The American healthcare system centers around Medicare. If Medicare drops benefits – Would you be surprised if it did? Not me – private insurance companies will follow suit.

Dr. Eady Mann, a longtime proponent of single-payer healthcare, said she was surprised when running for office by many people’s opposition to the single payer idea. They mistakenly believed that single payer would upend their employer-provided health insurance.

“It’s not enough to be a healthcare voter,” she said. “You must talk to neighbors and friends.”

Unfortunately, there has been much confusing information and disinformation spread about what causes climate change and what we can do about it. For decades, the fossil fuel industry denied human-generated global warming, because it didn’t benefit them. Why would they accept that humans contribute to climate change, when the wealth and power of their industry depend on misleading us into believing that what we see is not really what we see?

The current administration is obscuring the truth about climate change by gutting climate research funding, rolling back environmental protections, blocking green energy initiatives, and hiding results of previous research into causes of climate change. A great deal of money and energy is poured into misinformation campaigns to confuse us, while oil and gas profits soar.

What is even more concerning is that the most vulnerable communities in the US bear the brunt of damage by climate change. Those of us who enjoy at least a moderate standard of living can crank up the air conditioner a few degrees on those 100-degree days and complain about rising costs of electricity. Not all households enjoy that privilege—either the cranking up or the complaining. The most vulnerable among us: the elderly, the poor, and the disenfranchised, often have no air conditioning or the means to use it. In addition, many of these individuals have no power to demand better.

Recent policy actions that compound the issue include:

Elimination of NOAA research (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

• False claim: NOAA programs are “misaligned… with the expressed will of the American people.

• Impact: Endangers communities, severely weakens severe weather forecasting and public warning systems, halts weather research and science scholarship. Loss of vital scientific expertise

Deletion of National Climate Assessment website

• False claim: “Updates” are necessary

• Impact: Replaces peer-reviewed science with fossil fuel propaganda; limits public/state/local access to legally mandated climate science, undermines planning, and fuels uncertainty for decision-makers

Mass rollback of regulations / Mass exemptions

• False claim: Technology isn’t available; rollbacks help economy or national security

• Impact: Makes people get sick and die. Increased releases of mercury, arsenic and other toxins

Revoking the EPA “endangerment finding”

• False claim: That this “Gold Standard” research is unsound.

• Impact: Strips away the core legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases around the world. Weakens federal ability to cut emissions ; increases long-term climate and health costs.

Blaming migrants & immigrants

• False claim: FEMA/disaster funds were diverted to migrants; falsely blame migrants for crises.

• Impact: Deters migrants from seeking aid, removes critical disaster-recovery labor, and slows rebuilding — worsening outcomes for whole communities.

Our Most Vulnerable are Impacted Most

These tactics drive policies that disproportionately impact marginalized people, as we saw clearly in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina (20 years ago) and Helene (last year). In both instances, false claims and misinformation deprioritized the urgent needs of vulnerable people. This caused senseless deaths, pushed communities out of their homes in favor of corporate developers, and caused long-term damage to trust between communities and the institutions tasked with keeping them safe.

The Climate Justice Alliance works to ensure those hit first and worst get protection and aid—not neglect or exploitation. It means fixing the environmental racism that puts more pollution and disaster risk near Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income neighborhoods, while those same areas often have fewer trees, worse drainage, and slower repairs. Climate justice asks simple fairness questions: Who gets warnings, cooling, and safe shelter? Who gets repair funds and insurance, and who’s left with debt? Real justice keeps people housed, ensures aid reaches those most at risk, and protects the right to return, so recovery rebuilds communities, not just property.

Climate Justice: Key Factors, Ethical Dimensions, and Common Misconceptions

Climate justice refers to the principle that the burdens and benefits of climate change—and responses to it—should be distributed fairly, especially toward those who are least responsible and most affected. Addressing climate justice means considering both scientific/technical aspects (hazards, exposure, adaptation) and moral/political ones (rights, equity, responsibility). Below are imperative values for climate justice, then a list of several recurring myths and realities.

Ethical Principles Underpinning Climate Justice

• Equality / Equity: Treating people fairly given differing circumstances; sometimes this means different treatment to achieve fairness.

• Moral responsibility: Those who benefit from or contribute more to climate change have greater responsibility to act.

• Capability: People’s ability to protect themselves (economic, technological, social) influences how much support or compensation is required.

• Precaution: When risks are large and uncertain, erring on the side of protection, particularly for those most at risk.

• Transparency and Participation: Involving those affected in decision-making, ensuring access to information, recognizing knowledge (including indigenous/traditional knowledge).

Climate Change Myths & Realities

Myth 1: “Climate change is just natural cycles.”
Reality: Current warming is overwhelmingly human-caused. Natural variability cannot explain the rapid pace and global pattern of change.

Myth 2: “1–2°C isn’t enough to matter.”
Reality: Small average shifts drive extreme events, crop failures, and ecosystem stress. Human systems are finely tuned to stable climates.

Myth 3: “Everyone is affected equally.”
Reality: Poor and marginalized groups are more exposed, less able to adapt, and often hit hardest. Justice requires differentiated responses.

Myth 4: “Markets and technology will fix it alone.”
Reality: Without policy, regulation, and fairness measures, market benefits flow mainly to the well-resourced, leaving many behind.

Myth 5: “Humans can adapt to anything.”
Reality: Some impacts are irreversible, some communities lack resources, and adaptation has limits—especially for the most vulnerable.

Myth 6: “Uncertainty means we should wait.”
Reality: Uncertainty cuts both ways—many risks could be worse or sooner. The precautionary principle supports urgent action.

Myth 7: “Climate action costs too much.”
Reality: Inaction costs far more. Well-designed policies bring long-term benefits and can protect poor communities through just transitions.

Bringing It Together: Why It Matters and What Justice Demands

Given the factors above, climate justice demands that:

• Policies & funding be directed in ways that prioritize those most vulnerable — reducing exposure, sensitivity, and increasing adaptive capacity in disadvantaged groups.

• Distributive justice: richer, high-emitting actors (countries, corporations, individuals) should bear more of the cost of mitigation and support for adaptation & loss and damage.

• Inclusive decision-making: those affected should have voice in planning, policymaking, resource allocation.

• Protect human rights: ensure that basic rights (health, food, water, shelter) are preserved in climate policy.

• International cooperation: since climate change is global, solutions must go beyond borders; including finance, technology sharing, capacity building.

• Forward-looking justice: intergenerational dimensions, preventing locking in harms that future people will have to bear.

Conclusion

Climate justice is a complex, multi-dimensional issue. It is not just about reducing emissions or building infrastructure, but about fairness: who suffers, who decides, who pays, and who is heard. Recognizing the differences in exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity; acknowledging historical responsibilities; protecting rights; ensuring equitable participation—all are essential. Misconceptions and fallacies can obscure these needs, delay action, or lead to unjust policy.

My question to those who choose to deny climate change is whether they’re willing to gamble the lives and safety of their children and grandchildren on their denial of decades of research by hundreds of credentialled climate scientists. I know I’m not. If I can take action today to provide a safer world for those who come after me, including those without power to influence their environment, I will take it—whether I live long enough to enjoy it or not. That’s a gamble I’m willing to take.

Yet, one of our nagging challenges is how to inspire younger folks.

Leah Greenberg, co-founder of Indivisible, has a radically different approach. Many Zoomers and Millennials, maybe even younger Gen Xs, drawing from their life experiences, have suffered over the last 20 years in ways that we Boomers mostly avoided. For them, it’s tough to buy a home, the price of higher education is through the roof, financial security is out of reach (even as net worths grow on paper), Social Security heading into financial headwinds.

So, rather than fighting for the return of pre-Trump America, maybe we should turn our focus to the longer term, to building a world that’s better for all.

I don’t have a blueprint for a “world that’s better for all,” of course. That’s above my pay grade. I think some essential elements include a much stronger national health-insurance program, beyond the ACA; a strong program for affordable housing; curtailment of money in politics, and the gerrymandering that it prompts; passage of legislation, even Constitutional Amendments, that no one is above the law, whether a president, billionaire, or a regular person; rethinking of gun rights, which have become the right to kill in too many places; giving women control over their own health; a sane immigration policy.

Our current situation echoes with parallels to the American Civil War. The confederates went to war rather than live in a better world, i.e., one without slavery. The North initially sought simply to keep those 11 traitorous confederate states in the Union.

I can’t predict what might have happened had the war ended early, through negotiation or military victory.

But it did not, and as the bodies, blue and grey alike, piled higher, the fight became about even more than preservation. The Union found itself creating a revolution, a revolution against the old, corrupt order, that resulted in emancipation for millions. Through the deadly war, said President Lincoln, America “shall have a new birth of freedom.” Is today similar? I think so.

We have the opportunity to reshape our country. Be aware that our opponents seek to make America less free, less fair, and less prosperous (for us non-oligarchs), and they are willing to ditch our Constitution to neuter the power of the federal government… and give Trump more power. It is up to us to build a better world, while opposing the imposition of a
worse one.

The Force is with us. Can we win? Well, as my alter ego Han Solo would say, “Never tell me the odds!”

✅ Quick Election Facts

• Fraud rate: 0.0003% – 0.0025% (Brennan Center)

• Out of 1 billion ballots (2000–2014): only 31 credible fraud cases (Loyola Law study)

• 2020: “Most secure election in American history” – Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)

• In 6 battleground states, fewer than 475 suspicious ballots out of 25.5 million (AP review)

It’s disheartening that election integrity has been under attack in recent years by the Trump administration—and others before it—who stir up discontent and circulate false rumors about election fraud from no other motive than sour grapes. Instead of ensuring that all voters can safely cast votes, they legislate obstacles that make voting more difficult.

Even worse, the Republican party indicates that election results will only be accepted if they are favorable to Republicans. Ridiculous claims in 2020 of illegal ballots being dumped by the truckload at drop-off locations or hordes of dead people voting continue to circulate. Jewish space lasers? Seriously? The more bizarre the theory, the more some people cling to it, it seems.

Let’s be clear: America’s elections are remarkably secure, voter fraud is extraordinarily rare, and the safeguards used for mail voting work.

Over the past decade, multiple independent reviews have measured illegal voting and found minuscule rates. A widely cited Brennan Center synthesis of studies puts the incidence of voter fraud between 0.0003% and 0.0025%—so rare that an American is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate a voter at the polls.

In a separate investigation, Loyola Law School’s Justin Levitt identified 31 plausible cases of voter impersonation out of more than 1 billion ballots cast from 2000–2014 as reported in The Washington Post. These are not partisan talking points; they’re empirical findings that have withstood years of scrutiny.

When the 2020 election was falsely labeled “rigged,” government and journalistic reviews tested those claims. The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and state/local election officials jointly declared the 2020 contest “the most secure in American history.”

The Associated Press examined every potential fraud case in the six most-contested swing states and found fewer than 475—nowhere near enough to change outcomes out of roughly 25.5 million ballots cast in those states. Even officials appointed by the White House at the time publicly affirmed those conclusions, as evidenced by testimony in 2020 by Chris Krebs (the CISA Director) before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in the U.S. Senate.

Do proven cases exist? Yes—and that’s precisely the point: the few that happen are detectable and prosecuted, and they are vanishingly small. Consider two examples:

• North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District (2018). A political operative hired by the Republican candidate orchestrated an illegal absentee-ballot scheme. The state elections board unanimously ordered a new election, explicitly concluding that the contest had been “corrupted by fraud, improprieties, and irregularities.” This is one of the rare modern cases where wrongdoing was serious enough to void a federal race—proof that safeguards and oversight work when problems arise.

• Double-voting prosecutions in Florida’s The Villages (2020). Several voters admitted or were charged with voting in two states. They faced felony charges or diversion programs. These cases are instructive precisely because they are isolated and were caught—and because they didn’t approach the scale needed to alter statewide results.

What about mail-in ballots?

The evidence does not support claims that voting by mail invites widespread fraud. The MIT Election Data and Science Lab (MEDSL) documents the administrative controls for mail-in ballots (signature verification, unique barcodes and tracking, bipartisan handling, and audits). Research shows no evidence that mail ballots systematically increase fraud or advantage one party.

A common myth is that “dead people vote by mail.” Real audits don’t bear that out. Using Washington State’s all-mail system as a test, Stanford researchers linked voter files to death records and found only a handful of suspicious cases over years of voting—evidence that such fraud is extremely rare and that list maintenance and verification steps do their job.

If fraud is so rare, how do we know mail ballots are still counted accurately? Because the system’s routine checks generate measurable data. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s comprehensive survey of the 2022 midterms reports that 1.5% of returned mail ballots were rejected—mostly for mundane, non-fraud reasons like late arrival or missing signatures.

It’s also important to put anecdotes in statistical context. “A case here, a case there” can sound alarming on cable news, but in presidential years, well over 150 million ballots are cast nationwide. Studies that start with all ballots—rather than with headlines—consistently conclude that fraud is too scarce to change outcomes.

Why the disconnect between perception and reality? Partly, it’s because fraud fears are intuitively compelling and easy to allege but hard to disprove one-by-one on television. Meanwhile, the nuts-and-bolts defenses—secure voter rolls, ballot tracking, chain-of-custody rules, signature matching, bipartisan canvassing boards, and vote audits—aren’t flashy. Yet those are exactly the safeguards that kept 2020 secure despite a pandemic, record turnout, and unprecedented misinformation pressure according to the MIT Election Lab.

An Imperfect, but Secure System

None of this is to say the system is perfect, but the lesson from a decade of data is straightforward: the United States runs elections with extremely high integrity; illegal voting is a statistical anomaly; and mail-in ballots, when administered with standard safeguards, are secure. The very few times fraud does occur—whether a small handful of double votes or a larger absentee operation like North Carolina’s 9th—it’s uncovered, prosecuted, and, if necessary, remedied with audits or do-over elections.

❌ Dispelling Myths

Myth 1: “Voter fraud is widespread.”
➡️ Fact: Fraud is statistically near zero.

Myth 2: “Millions of dead people vote.”
➡️ Fact: Audits show only rare clerical errors or isolated cases.

Myth 3: “Mail-in ballots are insecure.”
➡️ Fact: Ballots use barcodes, signature checks, and tracking.
In 2022, 1.5% of mail ballots were rejected—mostly late or unsigned, not fraud.

Myth 4: “Fraud changed the 2020 election.”
➡️ Fact: Courts, audits, and bipartisan officials confirmed no widespread fraud.

Myth 5: “Fraud goes unchecked.”
➡️ Fact: Fraud is caught and prosecuted.

• NC 2018: fraudulent race voided, re-run

• FL 2020: double voters charged

If you hear a sweeping claim—“thousands of dead voters,” “ballots dumped,” “mail voting is corrupt”—ask for the audit trail. In every serious review of recent elections, the audit trail points the same way: tiny numbers of cases, caught by existing checks, with no evidence of systemic fraud. That’s why security officials called 2020 the most secure election in U.S. history and why independent analyses such as those by the Associated Press cited above, continue to find that election crime is rare, detectable, and ineffective at changing results.

The Bottom Line

American elections are among the most secure in the world. Fraud exists at the margins, but it is exceedingly rare, routinely detected, and never on a scale to alter major outcomes. Mail-in ballots are safe when administered under existing safeguards.

The facts show that rather than a system “rigged” against voters, we have one that works—and one that deserves our trust.