Wednesday, October 21, 2026
Ahead of Midterms, Justice Kagan Says Rulings Have Intensified Polarization - The New York Times
Ahead of Midterms, Justice Kagan Says Rulings Have Intensified Polarization
The justice said during a discussion that recent Supreme Court decisions on voting rights, gerrymandering and campaign finance have deepened America’s divides.
Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday criticized the Supreme Court’s conservative majority for a series of election-related decisions in recent years that she said have led to more polarization and a dysfunctional democracy.
Justice Kagan, one of the court’s three liberals, delivered the sharp critique two weeks before hotly contested midterm elections and in front of an ideologically mixed crowd of law students and professors. In a wide-ranging discussion, she pointed to the court’s rulings that have loosened restrictions on campaign funding, cleared the way for partisan voting maps and undermined landmark voting rights protections.
“In all these areas, the court has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effects of their rulings on how the political system works” and has created “a democracy that does not work as well as it should.”
"The justice’s remarks came during a conversation at Catholic University’s law school with Prof. J. Joel Alicea, who was a law clerk to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative.
While Justice Kagan has issued strongly worded dissents in individual election-related cases, her remarks on Tuesday amounted to a global critique of how a series of choices by the court’s majority have affected democracy in the United States. Taken together, she said, the rulings have deepened political divisions and made the country’s electoral system work less well.
Justice Kagan wrote the dissent, for instance, when the court in 2019 closed the door on federal litigation challenging voting maps aimed at achieving political ends. As a result, she said, “both political parties have been engaged in a race to the bottom” to draw voting maps that advantage either Democrats or Republicans in a way that “is very destructive of our democracy.”
Similarly, she said the court’s decisions to ease campaign finance rules have left loopholes that have allowed a massive infusion of political contributions into elections.
“The people of America look around this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare,” she said. “And they’re right.”
Justice Kagan spoke as the court’s new term has begun and ahead of midterm contests that will determine control of Congress, and could require the Supreme Court to intervene in post-election challenges. Election-related litigation has already been filed across the country, with both political parties anticipating the possibility of voter intimidation and the seizure of ballots.
In the coming months, the justices will also hear arguments in high-profile cases involving the legality of bans on semiautomatic rifles, religious rights and President Trump’s aggressive crackdown on illegal immigration.
Even as the court has moved to the right with the addition of three justices nominated by Mr. Trump, Justice Kagan, a nominee of President Barack Obama, has at times found compromise with her colleagues selected by Republican presidents.
Before joining the bench in 2010, she was the dean of Harvard Law School, where she was known for building coalitions and recruiting conservative faculty members.
On Tuesday, Justice Kagan was the first justice who was nominated by a Democratic president and is a non-Catholic to take part in the annual event sponsored by the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. She is the fifth justice to participate.
She went over the allotted hour for the event and seemed eager to offer a polite takedown of originalism, the theory embraced by conservative justices that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its public meaning at the time it was adopted.
“They were writing the Constitution for the ages. They were writing the Constitution, knowing that there would be change in the world,” she said.
“The whole project” of originalism, she added, “is kind of misconceived, and it’s not a very good match with the Constitution we have.”
Even as Justice Kagan faulted the conservative majority for not considering the consequences of its election-related rulings, she reiterated her defense of the conservative-dominated bench from a July appearance and said it was a “bum rap” to suggest the court had been too deferential to Mr. Trump.
In the court’s term that wrapped up in late June, the justices delivered long-sought conservative wins that expanded presidential power over immigration and the federal bureaucracy, in addition to dealing a blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark civil rights law.
But the court, including justices nominated by Mr. Trump, also rejected some of his marquee policies. The court struck down the president’s tariffs, blocked his order to end the guarantee of birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born babies of undocumented immigrants and prevented him from immediately firing a leader of the Federal Reserve.
Recent polls have shown declining public opinion of the Supreme Court with a majority of Americans saying the justices are motivated mainly by politics rather than law, according to a September survey conducted by Marquette University Law School. Those unfavorable views come as Democratic officials and candidates are increasingly calling for structural changes to the court should the party win control of Congress.
Justice Kagan said the court she joined 16 years ago was more balanced and held in higher esteem by the public in part because it was less predictable. She pointed to the period after Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016 when she said the justices had to compromise, listen and issue narrow rulings to try to avoid being deadlocked 4 to 4.
“There was a period of time where the court was in a better place and the country was in a better place because the court was more balanced and it was unclear whether the court could push through anybody’s program.”
“Nobody in America thought that the court was in the pocket of any one group or any one party,” she said, “and the court had a kind of legitimacy.”
Ann E. Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Times from Washington."
Opinion | The Hunting of Ilhan Omar - The New York Times
The Hunting of Ilhan Omar
"You can understand the Trump administration as, in its essence, a cargo cult devoted to the illiberal tradition in American politics.
At every turn, it seeks to instantiate a society where, as the historian Steven Hahn writes, “rights-bearing may be defined or limited by specific rulers or be based on communities of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender” and where “civil and political standing tend to be marked by social and cultural exclusions.” To this end, it uses power “in its most naked and aggressive forms,” including outright violence.
What makes this a cargo cult is the extent to which the administration is preoccupied with summoning the image of a consolidated authoritarian state, versus taking the concrete steps needed to unravel liberal democracy as such. It is less concerned with passing laws than it is with projecting an image of dominance over civil society, whether or not there is a durable settlement. It does this through dramatic action whose central purpose is to menace, threaten and otherwise send a message.
The Department of Homeland Security’s recent raid on the Washington home of Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota is a striking example of all of the above. The pretext of the raid is immigration enforcement. The White House asserts that Omar obtained her citizenship under false pretenses after she arrived to the United States from Somalia as a child, brought over by her father, who filed the required paperwork.
The specific charge is that Omar was listed as being 17 — and thus eligible for automatic citizenship through her father — when she was actually 18 and a legal adult who would have to obtain citizenship on her own. The raid was a fishing expedition — an attempt to build a case, any case, using materials seized from her home, including her cellphone, notebooks, personal computers and her passport. The goal appears to be to denaturalize Omar and then remove her from the country as an “illegal alien.” As the so-called border czar Tom Homan told Fox News on Saturday, “If you lie during the naturalization process, there is a process to denaturalize somebody. We’ve done it before … and certainly, if the evidence points that way, that could happen.”
Both the charge and the case are obvious nonsense. There is no evidence that Omar lied or otherwise misled the federal government to obtain citizenship. The idea itself comes from the fetid swamps of the online far right — an expression of the anti-Somali bigotry that President Trump has elevated to the equivalent of state ideology. And in turn, the government’s hunt for evidence to wield against Omar is less about combating fraud and more about the president’s racist crusade against Somali Americans as well as his specific disdain for Omar, a vocal (and visible) political opponent of his administration.
It is because the investigation seems likely to fail on the merits — and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to intimidate a political opponent — that the spectacle carries the flavor of cargo cult activity. And yet, it still represents a shocking escalation of the president’s reactionary dominance politics, as well as an assault on a set of basic constitutional guarantees.
The White House seeks to punish Ilhan Omar for exercising her right to free speech. It seeks to curtail Representative Omar’s privileges and immunities under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate clause, which holds that “for any Speech or Debate in either House,” both senators and representatives “shall not be questioned in any other Place.” It also hopes to arrogate the Constitution’s declaration that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members” so that it can shape the composition of Congress itself.
One striking aspect of the second Trump administration worth noting is the extent to which the president keeps reinventing Stuart absolutism from first principles. Here, the president is all but re-enacting Charles I’s attempt to arrest his five most vocal opponents in the House of Commons in order to force the body into submission.
It should be said that the drive to denaturalize Omar is, by itself, a startling attack on the liberty of all Americans. It’s a move that harks back to the worst of the nation’s past — those moments when the government sought to shape, define and ultimately choose who would be “the people” of the United States.
“The United States has regularly revoked the citizenship of native-born and naturalized citizens alike,” the legal historian Amanda Frost observes in “You Are Not American: Citizenship Stripping from Dred Scott to the Dreamers.” At its core, she continues, “citizenship stripping embodies the view that society can cast out its unwanted and use that process to redefine itself and all those allowed to remain.”
Over the course of our history, countless Black Americans, Mexican Americans and Japanese Americans — not to mention women married to foreign nationals — have been stripped of citizenship in this nation’s repeated efforts to define full political and legal status by race and nationality.
The effort to denaturalize Omar is reminiscent of the federal government’s pursuit of Emma Goldman, the Lithuanian-born anarchist and activist who was hounded out of the United States for her political views. One of millions of émigrés from the Russian Empire, Goldman escaped poverty and state-supported antisemitism as a teenager, reaching New York City in 1885. By the turn of the century, she was making her mark on American society as a powerful and magnetic proponent of human rights — of workers, of women, of immigrants — against hierarchies of all kinds.
In 1906, in the midst of mass immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, Congress passed the Basic Naturalization Act, which gave the government the right to denaturalize American citizens. Denaturalization was permitted, writes Frost, “‘on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such certificate of citizenship was illegally procured’ — standards that could lead to denaturalization for minor errors in naturalization applications filed long in the past.” And the government, in Frost’s telling, focused its scrutiny on those immigrants who were a thorn in its side, like Goldman.
Goldman’s citizenship came through her former husband, Jacob Kershner, a fellow immigrant and naturalized citizen. But a handful of minor mistakes in his journey to citizenship were grounds to denaturalize him and, more important to federal officials, void Goldman’s claim to citizenship. She was arrested in 1917 for agitating against American involvement in the First World War, in violation of the Espionage Act. A young J. Edgar Hoover, then leading the government’s crusade against radicals, traveled to New York City to witness her deportation.
Most Americans who know this history look back at these episodes with shame and regret. Not so the Trump administration and its allies. For them these moments of authoritarian abuse — when the federal government used its power to target opponents, harass dissidents and hunt disfavored groups — are proof of concept.
The White House seems to think that if it goes through the motions of repression, it can get the same results. Hence the cargo cult quality of its actions here and in other arenas. Not only is there broad and deeply felt opposition to the administration’s attempts to persecute and ostracize its critics but there is little about the politics of the moment that favor the White House and its allies. The president, after all, is more unpopular than he has ever been.
If the Trump administration has one trick, it’s this: to abuse its power in increasingly draconian and autocratic ways, in the hope that it will establish the authoritarian dominance it tried to project. It is terribly destructive. It also doesn’t work. Looking at the growing odds of a Republican electoral catastrophe in November, I don’t think it will.
But if we can be certain of anything, it’s this: They won’t stop trying.
Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va."
Who Is Stephen James Hubbard, the American Released From Russian Jail? - The New York Times
Who Is Stephen James Hubbard, the American Released by Russia?
Mr. Hubbard, a 74-year-old teacher, was held for more than four years on what the State Department called fabricated charges.
Russia on Wednesday released a 74-year-old American teacher after holding him as a prisoner for more than four years. He had been convicted of working for Ukraine as a mercenary, charges that the United States said were fabricated.
The teacher, Stephen James Hubbard, was the only American in Russia considered “wrongfully detained” by the State Department and the only one to have been captured in Ukraine during the war and taken to Russia. His release came after President Trump, who has been easing American sanctions on Moscow, appealed directly to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin.
Here’s how Mr. Hubbard became an unlikely pawn in an international conflict.
How did he end up in Ukraine?
Mr. Hubbard grew up in Big Rapids, a small Michigan city, with his mother and sister. As a young man, he enlisted in the Air Force and then the National Guard but did not stay long in either. His first marriage, at 20, fell apart, and his second marriage took him to Japan in the mid-1980s. There, he joined the Russian Orthodox Church. He became sympathetic toward Russia.
After his second marriage ended, Mr. Hubbard moved to Cyprus, where a son from his first marriage lived and where he fell in love with a Ukrainian woman. The couple moved to Izium, in eastern Ukraine, in 2014, where Mr. Hubbard taught English online.
Mr. Hubbard was a solitary man, family members said. He avoided email and social media, and he was suspicious of potential government surveillance. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Mr. Hubbard sent family members updates about his daily activities, which included searching for food and going to church. In text messages with a son of his who lives in Japan, he gave no indication that he had joined the Ukrainian military.
How was he captured?
Russian forces captured Mr. Hubbard, then 70, just weeks after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.
The circumstances of his arrest are murky, but the Russian authorities said that Mr. Hubbard had been arrested at the home of an acquaintance and that he had been manning a military checkpoint. The Russian authorities said that Mr. Hubbard had joined a regional territorial unit to defend Ukraine and that he received training, weapons, ammunition and $1,000 a month.
In October 2024, a Moscow court sentenced Mr. Hubbard to six years and 10 months in a penal colony on charges of serving as a mercenary in Ukraine. Russian state news agencies reported that he had pleaded guilty to the charges.
Where was he held?
Mr. Hubbard was first held at a detention camp near the Russia-Ukraine border and later imprisoned in at least five different Russian detention centers. At times, his family had no idea where he was and the United States Embassy had no access to him. The New York Times pieced together accounts from fellow prisoners of war to trace where he had been held.
Unlike other Americans held in the Russian prison system, Mr. Hubbard, who spoke neither Ukrainian nor Russian, was kept in the general population, his lawyers said. Ukrainian prisoners of war who were held with Mr. Hubbard said that he had been repeatedly tortured because he was an American — beaten, forced to stand all day, given little food and poor medical care.
In May 2025, Mr. Hubbard was allowed to call his son in Cyprus, Joseph Coleman. In an interview, Mr. Coleman said that he had spoken for about a minute with his father, who initially sounded like he was in good spirits.
“But then somewhere in the middle it turned and you could you could hear the frustration in his voice,” Mr. Coleman recalled. “You could hear maybe a slight lack of hope.”
Mr. Coleman, who is a Greek Orthodox priest, wrote a long letter to Mr. Putin in September, emphasizing his Orthodox faith and pleading for his father’s release.
“My father is not a man of violence,” Mr. Coleman wrote. “He is a teacher and a peace-loving man, and above all he is my father.”
Why was he released?
Mr. Putin announced his decision to release Mr. Hubbard during a meeting with Mr. Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Wednesday.
Russia released Mr. Hubbard unilaterally, rather than in a prisoner swap — suggesting that for Mr. Putin, the American prisoner’s value had changed from a pawn in negotiations to a symbol of his renewed relationship with Mr. Trump.
In the days before Mr. Hubbard’s release, relations between the White House and Ukraine had frayed, with Mr. Trump moving to buy Russian diesel, lifting sanctions on Moscow and pressuring Ukraine to stop attacking Russian oil refineries.
Mr. Hubbard, who is in fragile health, will be flown to a State Department facility in Texas for evaluation and treatment. His sister planned to travel to Texas to meet him. Mr. Coleman and another of Mr. Hubbard’s sons, the one who lives in Japan, also flew to the United States to be with their father.
Kim Barker is a Times reporter writing in-depth stories about the war in Ukraine.
Lynsey Chutel is a Times reporter based in London who covers breaking news in Africa, the Middle East and Europe."
Tuesday, October 20, 2026
Sunday, October 18, 2026
How Trump’s justice department is testing separation of powers before the US midterms
How Trump’s justice department is testing separation of powers before the US midterms
Trump’s justice department has aggressively intervened in midterms, including raiding Ilhan Omar’s home, suing California over 20,000 names, and sending Todd Blanche to Republican rallies. Officials claim no rule bars actions, though norms and manuals discourage interference.
Donald Trump’s justice department has aggressively inserted itself into the midterm elections in the contest’s final weeks, shattering the department’s longstanding practice of political neutrality and leaving little doubt about the department’s willingness to help should the president attempt to subvert elections where his party is forecasted to lose seats and ultimately control of Congress.
In the last few weeks, federal agents have raided the home of a Democratic congresswoman up for re-election. It has touted criminal charges and arrests of non-citizens charged with voter fraud. The attorney general has hit the campaign trail to stump for Republican candidates. And the department gave California election officials 48 hours to investigate the citizenship of 20,000 people, and then sued the state when it refused to comply. The FBI also recently published a video criticizing Michigan senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and other Democrats, drawing an immediate rebuke from one watchdog, who said the video “has no place in a democratic society”.
On Monday, federal agents raided her DC home of Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar, who is running for re-election this fall. The raid was part of a reported immigration fraud investigation into Omar, an outspoken critic of the president, and an apparent push to try to denaturalize her. Omar is up for re-election, and Minnesota Democrats broadly are facing more headwinds than fellow party members in most other states.
“For decades, the justice department sought to avoid investigative steps that might influence an election, recognizing that election integrity is threatened when DoJ is perceived as putting its thumb on the scale,” said Stacey Young, a former justice department attorney who now leads Justice Connection, a group that supports justice department alumni.
“This was always a case-by-case analysis, led by experts in the public integrity section. But this administration pushed those experts out of the department, and employees seeking guidance are now directed to political appointees loyal to the president,” she added.
A justice department official said there is no rule or policy that bars the DoJ from taking action close to an election. The department is not required to stop ongoing work during election season, the official said.
A provision of the justice department manual says prosecutors and law enforcement agents should not take “any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party”. A separate provision of the manual says that “the Department should not engage in overt criminal investigative measures in matters involving alleged ballot fraud until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded”.
An unwritten department practice has established a blackout window of at least 60 days before an election in which prosecutors should refrain from any activities that could influence the election. In September 2024, Todd Blanche, then serving as the president’s personal attorney, pointed to the rule to argue that special counsel Jack Smith should not be allowed to file a long brief with damaging information in the criminal election interference case against Trump. “Departures from these practices should never be countenanced because they risk allowing prosecutors to impact national elections,” Blanche wrote at the time. Experts disagreed with that argument at the time, pointing out that Smith was responding to a court-ordered deadline.
“For decades, the justice department has avoided even the appearance of political interference in the run-up to an election, and that’s exactly what the 60-day rule exists to protect,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a watchdog group. “This DoJ is doing the opposite.”
Now, Blanche leads the justice department, and the 60-day rule seems to have gone out the window. The DoJ official said the 60-day rule was an informal practice.
Over the last few weeks, the department has sent out press releases announcing voter fraud charges against noncitizens with photos of their arrests. Noncitizen voting is extremely rare, and when it does occur, it is often because someone is confused about their eligibility. Court documents filed in many of the cases the justice department have charged contain little detail about whether the people charged knew they were ineligible.
“The DoJ’s actions ahead of the election, which violate longstanding norms, are extremely concerning. They are emblematic of how the Trump administration has repeatedly and illegally weaponized the federal law enforcement apparatus to interfere in our elections,” said Donald Sherman, president and CEO of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew), a watchdog group.
The department has also made a last-minute push to try to force states to purge voters from the rolls.
In an extraordinary move last week, the justice department sent election officials in Los Angeles a USB-drive with a handwritten password. The drive contained the names of potential noncitizens on the county’s rolls, the justice department said. The department gave county officials 48 hours to investigate the citizenship statuses and segregate ballots from anyone whose status they could not confirm and said the department would seek “emergency relief” if they did not.
Dean Logan, the top election official in Los Angeles, told the justice department his office would not be accessing the drive because it didn’t consider it secure. The department also didn’t say how many people were on the list and hadn’t described its methodology for identifying the voters. The department later said in a court filing it had provided the names of 20,000 people to the state.
After California rebuffed the DoJ’s efforts, the department sued the state on Thursday, requesting a court order blocking the state from counting the ballots from anyone among the 20,000 whose citizenship had not been confirmed.
The DoJ could have easily provided California with the names of people it suspected were on its voter rolls and its methodology for identifying them months ago, said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a group that works on election administration issues. Instead, the department waited until after California had sent out mail-in ballots. Federal law also prohibits election officials from systematically purging voters within 90 days of a federal election.
“If they were seeking to work in good faith to clean up the voter list that they believed had issues, they would have done this months ago in a much different fashion,” Becker said. “However, it does raise questions as to whether or not the sole purpose of this is to set the stage for false claims about election theft after an election that the president might be worried his party was going to do poorly.”
In what may be the department’s most overtly political act, Blanche has also spoken at campaign rallies for Republican candidates and at the Republican convention in Dallas earlier this year. The department recently revised ethics guidance for officials appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to allow them to participate in more partisan political activities, according to a memo obtained by the PBS News Hour.
Blanche’s appearance raised concerns among ethics officials, despite the department’s claims that he was acting in his personal capacity.
“Attorney general Blanche’s appearances at political events are made in his personal capacity. His appearances are reviewed and cleared by the department’s ethics officials. Travel expenses are reimbursed by the attorney general in accordance with federal law, regulations and policies,” a DOJ spokesperson said.
Federal ethics regulations prohibit officials from taking actions that “create even the appearance of violating the law or ethical standards”, Joseph Tirrell, who was fired as the top ethics official at the justice department last year, wrote in a blogpost earlier this year.
“The question is not merely whether Blanche crossed a technical line. It is whether his appearance made federal law enforcement look like an arm of a partisan campaign,” Tirrell wrote.
“Senior Trump administration law enforcement officials at DoJ, FBI and DHS have yet to be held accountable for their weaponization of prosecutions and legal attacks on candidates or their apparent violations of the Hatch Act, which bans them from using their official positions for political purposes,” Sherman said. “From Blanche’s participation in political rallies to Trump’s attacks on voting to the recent raid on a congresswoman’s home, these relentless attempts to influence the upcoming election are incredibly disturbing and pose a serious threat to our democracy.”
The DoJ’s insertion into electoral politics comes as far-right figures have urged Trump to take the drastic step of seizing voting machines before the election – something he does not have the power to do. The Trump administration has also refused to rule out sending ICE agents to the polls.
A compliant justice department would get rid of a significant guardrail to implementing some of those ideas. As Trump sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election, senior officials in the justice department refused to go along with the idea and threatened to resign en masse. William Barr, the attorney general in 2020, told Trump the claims about election fraud were “bullshit”.“
Friday, October 16, 2026
Trump’s Attempt to Deport Ilhan Omar Is Another Leap Toward the Abyss
Trump’s Attempt to Deport Ilhan Omar Is Another Leap Toward the Abyss
“The Trump administration is investigating Ilhan Omar’s citizenship to enable deportation, targeting her ethnicity and politics. Homeland Security seized devices; the case involves her father’s application. This signals provisional status for foreign-born citizens and follows prior deportations.
In his final speech as president, Ronald Reagan emphasized the essential role of immigration in American greatness. “We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people — our strength — from every country and every corner of the world,” he said. Reagan cited a letter he’d received about how one can’t simply move to France and become a Frenchman or move to Japan and become Japanese. “But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American,” he said.
Donald Trump, who launched his political career with lies about Barack Obama’s birthplace, is devoted to destroying this ideal. For Trump and his movement, real Americans are defined by race and ancestry. The administration’s war on birthright citizenship stems from that belief. It’s the reason Trump, who accused immigrants of “poisoning the blood” of our country, has limited refugee resettlement almost exclusively to white South Africans. JD Vance channeled the same idea last year when, attacking the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, he said, “I think the people whose ancestors fought in the Civil War have a hell of a lot more claim over America than the people who say they don’t belong.”
And now the Trump administration is attempting to strip Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia, of her citizenship so as to deport her. This is more than just another persecution of one of Trump’s political enemies. Rather, his government is tacitly declaring the citizenship of all foreign-born people provisional, their Americanness something that can be revoked. It’s a frontal attack on the idea of constitutional equality. As Hannah Arendt wrote — a quote that the writer John Ganz reminded me of — “One is almost tempted to measure the degree of totalitarian infection by the extent to which the concerned governments use their sovereign right of denationalization.”
This week, as you might have read by now, around 20 Homeland Security agents raided Omar’s home in Washington, seizing her phone and computers, among other things. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the investigation is aimed at denaturalizing her, a prelude to deporting her. In its attempt to cast out Omar, the administration is looking not just at her own actions, but also at those of her father, who applied for citizenship when she was a teenager. Apparently, the case hinges on whether she was 18 rather than 17 at the time.
I have no idea whether Omar or her father (who died in 2020) did anything wrong, but the details of her immigration paperwork are somewhat beside the point. What matters is that Trump targeted Omar for her politics and, even more, her ethnicity. Just months into her first term, he was calling for her expulsion from America, his rally crowds lustily chanting, “Send her back!” In a cabinet meeting last year, he called Omar “garbage” and attacked Somalis more broadly, saying, “I don’t want them in our country.” As his political fortunes have waned, his rhetoric about Somalis has grown increasingly fascistic. On Truth Social last week, he wrote that the “once Great State of Minnesota is being taken over by Somali Immigrants.” As if trying to incite a pogrom, he urged: “Fight back Minnesota, fight back! If you need, the Federal Government will come to your rescue.”
Under these circumstances, it would be willfully credulous to assume the administration’s good faith in the Omar investigation. Even if the government ultimately fails to take away her citizenship, as it’s failed in most of its other attempts at political vengeance, it’s sending a message to every foreign-born American. Oppose Trump too loudly, and the government will comb through your paperwork — including paperwork filled out by your parents — for errors that could upend your life.
There is an obvious progression here. This regime has already tried to deport green card holders like Mahmoud Khalil for their political speech. It’s turned hundreds of thousands of Haitians — the group Trump demonized as pet-eating savages — into illegal immigrants overnight by ending their temporary protected status. Now it’s escalated to naturalized citizens. Omar probably won’t be the last. Though Trump has been charmed by New York’s mayor, Zohran Mamdani, other Republicans have called for his deportation. Representative Andy Ogles, a Tennessee Republican, has asked the Justice Department to review Mamdani’s naturalization documents. In the Trumpian schema, some Americans are here by right, and some only on sufferance.
It’s chastening to think back to 2019, when Trump first tweeted that a group of progressive Democratic congresswomen, presumably including Omar, should go back to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” At the time, his bigotry was considered shocking. Four Republicans, as well as the Republican-turned-independent Justin Amash, joined Democrats in passing a House resolution condemning his words. Even Representative Elise Stefanik, who’d go on to become one of Trump’s most slavish lackeys, felt the need to denounce him. “While I strongly disagree with the tactics, policies and rhetoric of the far-left socialist ‘Squad,’ the president’s tweets were inappropriate, denigrating and wrong,” she said.
Now that Trump is acting on his gross rhetoric, the response has been more muted; by mass-producing outrages, the administration has numbed America’s ability to recognize their individual gravity. But it’s worth pausing to recognize that, with Trump’s attempt to banish Omar, we’ve crossed yet another once-unthinkable line.
For now, Trump’s power may be waning as his popularity collapses, but if the Republican Party continues on its current course, the next Republican president is likely to begin where he left off. The logic of this brand of politics moves inexorably toward atrocity.
Here’s Arendt again: “Mass cancellation of naturalizations, such as the one introduced by Nazi Germany in 1933 against all naturalized Germans of Jewish origin, usually preceded denationalization of citizens by birth in similar categories.” If there’s one lesson of the last decade, it’s never believe it can’t happen here.
Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several books about politics, religion and women’s rights and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment.“
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)