All Hat, No Cattle

Strong Man gaslighting that can’t hold up to common sensibilities

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?