Thursday, January 29, 2026

Ailing Trump Knows His Reign Is Nearly Over by Olivia Ralph

 


Donald Trump may still dominate the news cycle, but inside the White House, the foundations of his power are weakening—and he knows it, according to Trump’s biographer. On the latest episode of Inside Trump’s Head, author Michael Wolff described a White House increasingly gripped by anxiety as the president enters a pivotal midterm year burdened by collapsing pollsinternational resistance, self-inflicted crises that refuse to fade, and growing alarm among aides that Trump is losing interest in the presidency.   

“If you lose Donald Trump’s interest, you lose Donald Trump,” Wolff said. “He’s not interested in policy. He’s not interested in bureaucracy. He’s interested in unfettered attention.”

According to Wolff, the daily work of governing—incremental wins, trade-offs, and detail—bores Trump, draining his energy at a moment when political discipline matters most. That disengagement has become increasingly visible on the world stage. After heading to the World Economic Forum in Davos expecting to be treated as an untouchable strongman, Trump instead encountered coordinated resistance from allies who, Wolff argued, are no longer content to maneuver quietly around him.

“Trump’s virtue to voters is that no matter what happened, he looked strong,” Wolff told co-host Joanna Coles. “Now he cannot take Greenland, he cannot take Canada, he cannot do any of the things that he has huffed and puffed and said he will do.”

Wolff said the same pattern is playing out at home, where the administration has struggled to contain the fallout in Minneapolis following two fatal encounters involving federal immigration officers this month, further inflaming protests and political backlash“This has now become a very, very complicated situation,” Wolff said. 

For Trump, Minneapolis represents the kind of crisis he finds hardest to manage: one that can’t be bullied into submission or drowned out by spectacle. “He cannot threaten his way out of it,” Wolff said. “He can’t seem to generate a new headline to get himself out of it,” he continued. “The headlines that are generated are bad headlines.”

That dynamic, Wolff argued, points to a broader problem for Trump as the midterms approach. Governing, he said, demands a tolerance for incremental progress, which is at odds with Trump’s appetite for dominance and immediate results. “The work of the presidency does not inspire him,” Wolff said. “If it becomes complicated, that has to be pushed to the side.”

As Trump disengages, Wolff went on to say, the president has increasingly turned to performative conflict, including high-profile lawsuits and public feuds with powerful institutions. Once effective at projecting strength, those tactics now risk reinforcing the impression of a leader struggling to maintain control.

“There’s only so many times you can sue people for $5 billion or $20 billion,” Wolff said. “You look foolish.” With a little over nine months until the midterm elections, Wolff framed the moment as a genuine inflection point—not just for Republicans, but for Trump himself. “He can’t seem to generate a new headline to get himself out of it,” he continued. “The headlines that are generated are bad headlines.”

That dynamic, Wolff argued, points to a broader problem for Trump as the midterms approach. Governing, he said, demands a tolerance for incremental progress, which is at odds with Trump’s appetite for dominance and immediate results. “The work of the presidency does not inspire him,” Wolff said. “If it becomes complicated, that has to be pushed to the side.”

As Trump disengages, Wolff went on to say, the president has increasingly turned to performative conflict, including high-profile lawsuits and public feuds with powerful institutions. Once effective at projecting strength, those tactics now risk reinforcing the impression of a leader struggling to maintain control.

“There’s only so many times you can sue people for $5 billion or $20 billion,” Wolff said. “You look foolish.” With a little over nine months until the midterm elections, Wolff framed the moment as a genuine inflection point—not just for Republicans, but for Trump himself.

-Newsweek 

  

Bruce Springsteen's Streets of Minneapolis



streets of minneapolis song - Google Search 


Through the winter’s ice and cold
Down Nicollet Avenue
A city aflame fought fire and ice
‘Neath an occupier’s boots
King Trump’s private army from the DHS
Guns belted to their coats
Came to Minneapolis to enforce the law
Or so their story goes
Against smoke and rubber bullets
By the dawn’s early light
Citizens stood for justice
Their voices ringing through the night
And there were bloody footprints
Where mercy should have stood
And two dead left to die on snow-filled streets
Alex Pretti and Renee Good
Oh, our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Singing through the bloody mist
We’ll take our stand for this land
And the stranger in our midst
Here in our home, they killed and roamed
In the winter of ’26
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
Trump’s federal thugs beat up on
His face and his chest
Then we heard the gunshots
And Alex Pretti lay in the snow dead
Their claim was self-defense, sir
Just don’t believe your eyes
It’s our blood and bones
And these whistles and phones
Against Miller and Noem’s dirty lies
Oh, our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Crying through the bloody mist
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
Now they say they’re here to uphold the law
But they trample on our rights
If your skin is black or brown, my friend
You can be questioned or deported on sight
In chants of ICE out now
Our city’s heart and soul persist
Through broken glass and bloody tears
On the streets of Minneapolis
Oh, our Minneapolis, I hear your voice
Singing through the bloody mist
Here in our home, they killed and roamed
In the winter of ’26
We’ll take our stand for this our land
And the stranger in our midst
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis
We’ll remember the names of those who died
On the streets of Minneapolis






"Noem’s lying in and of itself should be grounds for termination"


Kristi Noem dresses up as a Texan. (Department of Homeland Security)

After a nationwide backlash to the extralegal killings of two Americans, Gregory Bovino, the thuggish face of the Customs and Border Patrol, was kicked out of Minneapolis. Now Democrats are rallying to force Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to quit, get fired, or face impeachment. It is easy to cynically dismiss Donald Trump’s personnel shuffling as nothing more than rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, but there are very good reasons to go after Noem, especially now.

Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, demanded Trump pull Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection out of Minnesota and fire Noem. “She directly lied to the American people about these killings, has overseen an agency that is endangering Americans, and is interfering with local police efforts to keep communities safe,” Tanden said in a forceful written statement.

Noem’s lying in and of itself should be grounds for termination. After condemning her for abjectly smearing two innocent Americans; making false, incendiary comments about “domestic terrorists”; and lying about her agents’ actions, defenders of democracy and truth cannot very well turn around to say she should face no consequences simply because there are worse offenders (e.g., Stephen Miller). We either accept grotesque lies as the new norm or we demand liars — especially people who are supposedly engaged in law enforcement — get fired.

Frankly, Noem should have been canned for deciding not to turn around planes heading for the Salvadoran prison camp CECOT in defiance of a district court order. Lawlessness and phony excuses (the plane was out of U.S. air space!) beget more lawlessness and dissembling.

Lying certainly is not Noem’s only sin. “Noem is absolutely unfit to lead an agency tasked with keeping Americans safe,” Tanden’s statement continued. “She bears responsibility for the agents under her command who killed two people and should face the consequences.”

Again, we cannot demand accountability for the underlings who killed Renée Good and Alex Pretti but not demand accountability for the person who sent unhinged, irresponsible shock troops into American cities, with the vice president promising immunity. (That would be like prosecuting the foot soldiers on Jan. 6, 2021, but refusing to indict Trump, who summoned them.)

Ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) was one of many Democrats demanding she resign, be fired, or be impeached. “Far from condemning these unlawful and savage killings in cold blood, Secretary Noem immediately labeled Renée and Alex ‘domestic terrorists,’ blatantly lied about the circumstances of the shootings that took their lives, and attempted to cover-up and blockade any legitimate investigation into their deaths,” he said in a written statement. The former manager in Trump’s second impeachment trial explained what additional benefits come from impeachment:

Rep. Robin Kelly’s H. Res. 996, a resolution to impeach Secretary Noem, has galvanized Members of the House of Representatives to express their outrage at Secretary Noem’s conduct and has properly propelled our committees along this path.

We must build on this resolution, through fact-finding, public hearings, and committee reports detailing all of Secretary Noem’s potential high crimes and misdemeanors and take our case to the American people. This process — which the House has followed in every successful impeachment — will afford us the best opportunity to build the most fitting and powerful case for impeachment and removal for office. 

It will also enable us to conduct a broad campaign to educate the American people about this sequence of oppressive governmental actions, to counter and ‘impeach’ the Administration’s persistent lies, and to develop legislative solutions to prevent any future assaults on the rights and liberties of the American people by an increasingly autocratic and out-of-control Executive Branch.

In short, the process of impeachment is as important as the decision itself because it serves to galvanize the public’s disgust over Noem’s outrageous conduct and reveal other Trump flunkies’ culpability for outrageous and potentially illegal conduct.

Even the threat of Noem getting sacked has apparently prompted her to start pointing fingers at an even bigger fish: Miller. (“Noem has complained to others that she feels she’s being hung out to dry over the episode and has made sure to emphasize she took direction from Miller and the president,” Axios reported.) Organized crime prosecutions traditionally begin by nailing lower-level suspects in hope they reveal incriminating information about higher-ups. To the extent the Trump regime has come to resemble a mob family, this tactic is especially effective.

Let’s remember that pro-democracy forces are in the battle for truth as much as anything. Creating a record, presenting the evidence through credible witnesses, and forcing Republicans to defend the indefensible (just as the original videos of the killings did) are part and parcel of rallying the people, throwing Republicans on defense, splitting the Republican cult, and, candidly, throwing Trump’s party and underlings into panic that others could also face Noem’s fate.

From a purely political standpoint, the calls for her to quit are already sowing divisions among Republicans. “Sens. Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign Tuesday, making them the first Republicans in Congress to say she should step down,” NBC reported. And, to boot, Tillis called out Miller for the same treatment. (“GOP Sen. Thom Tillis on Stephen Miller: ‘Stephen Miller never fails to live up to my expectations of incompetence,’ he said, later adding, ‘I can tell you, if I were president, neither one of them would be in Washington right now,’ also referring to Noem.”) Squeeze Noem and watch her drop the dime on others, including other Cabinet members, Vice President JD Vance, and Trump.

By making Noem’s ouster a necessary but not sufficient condition of dismantling Trump’s police state, Democrats should also force Republicans up for reelection (e.g., Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Bernie Moreno of Ohio, and John Cornyn of Texas) to justify why they are covering for her (and Trump). That should make for some effective debate moments.

Finally, without the White House or majorities in either chamber of Congress, Democrats do not have a surplus of “wins” to tout. To reassure the base that elected Democrats are fighting for them and to encourage protestors to achieve progress through nonviolent action, a win of this magnitude — knocking out a Cabinet secretary in charge of arguably the most important domestic initiative of Trump’s second term — would be an invaluable sign of momentum. And for a regime that survives on the aura of invincibility, each stumble, loss, and scandal should be treasured.

The complaint about intermediary progress (“In the long run, the only thing that matters is Trump [or Stephen Miller]”) reminds one of Maynard Keynes (“In the long run, we are all dead.”). Well, if we wait until the biggest fish gets hooked, our democracy may be dead.

Political change and community organizing require leaders to build momentum, show results, and keep their foot on the gas. To sustain the mass movement sweeping the country, Democrats must knock out Noem and then mount even greater assaults on the Trump fascist enterprise.


The Contrarian is reader-supported. To receive new posts, enable our work, help with litigation efforts, and keep this opposition movement alive and engaged, please consider joining the fight by becoming a paid subscriber.

 

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

No Kings Coalition Announces Immediate Efforts and Builds Towards Next National Mass Mobilization on March 28

 

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – In 2025, millions of Americans came together in nonviolent protest to oppose the growing authoritarian actions of the Trump administration and affirm that this nation belongs to its people, not to kings. Since then, people have continued to rise up against ongoing authoritarianism and federal abuses, including the administration’s latest escalation in Minnesota. The No Kings Coalition has activated an immediate and ongoing nationwide digital organizing effort leading up to their next mass mobilization on March 28, including a flagship event in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

No Kings launched its Eyes on ICE training program Monday, a nationwide virtual training designed to equip people with tools to exercise their rights and safely monitor federal enforcement actions. The first training drew a historic turnout of more than 200,000 viewers, and additional nationwide trainings will be ongoing, with the next on February 5.

The Trump administration has escalated their brutality and authoritarianism on families and immigrants in Minnesota and across the country, killing people, including Keith Porter Jr., Renée Good, Alex Pretti, and at least six people in ICE custody so far in 2026. Last year, 32 people died in ICE custody, making it ICE’s deadliest year in more than two decades.

In 2026, the No Kings Coalition expanded its anti-authoritarian movement by welcoming new partners, including even more of those most impacted by the Trump administration’s brutality and authoritarian actions. You can see a full list of partners at nokings.org/partners.

President Trump’s attempts to rule through repression have called Americans across the nation to respond through morally grounded and non-violent protest. Organizers are trained in de-escalation and are coordinating closely with local partners to ensure non-violent, lawful, disciplined, and powerful local actions.

To connect with a spokesperson for interviews, email media@nokings.org.


Contrarians, stay engaged and keep watching this space for updates. We will be out in force, coast-to-coast. Start prepping your signs and preparing for this next great mobilization for this essential fight to reclaim our country and our democracy.

Share

 

"We are still on the path to dictatorship"


...Eventually, people in countries that are in the process of flipping from democracy to fascism figure out that they’re now living in a dictatorship; by then, however, it’s usually too late.

For people in Hungary, it was May, 2020 when Orbán started arresting people for their Facebook posts. For folks in Russia, it was December, 2011 when Alexi Navalny and his supporters were first assaulted in public and then arrested and sent to brutal gulags in Siberia. For Germans, it was July 14, 1933 — six months after he became chancellor — when Hitler outlawed all political parties except his own.

But at first, the steps from democracy to fascism and tyranny always seems like “just another thing the government has to do to deal with a very real problem.” Something that reasonable people would understand and can’t reasonably object to. Something that, even if weird, makes a certain amount of sense.

After all, we do have millions of people in this country without documentation….

Until suddenly the mask is dropped and the twisted face of hateful fascism peers out at the country with laser-red eyes and a bloody mouth filled with threats and lies. Wearing camouflage, anonymous, face masked, carrying handcuffs and pepper spray while brandishing a gun.

Today, Trump appears to be backing away from his senior toadies who’re still blaming Nicole Good and Alex Pretti for their own executions, and both Democrats and the media are proclaiming Bovino’s departure as a “victory for democracy.”

It’s no such thing. This is a recalibration. Trump, like Orbán and Putin before him, is learning just how far he can go before he or his people encounter resistance, they can’t bludgeon their way through. They’re figuring out which messages will work to get us to accept the changes they’re making to America and our political and economic systems, including how much they can steal for themselves and their families, and which schemes won’t work out for them.

This is an old playbook that dates back to Machiavelli and before. It’s how every dictator ends up fabulously rich while wielding life-or-death power. Fascism doesn’t arrive with jackboots; it arrives with media and voter fatigue. As the political theorist Hannah Arendt warned, the very “banality” and “ordinariness” of such evil is its greatest weapon.

Victor Klemperer, a Jew who converted to Lutheranism and then chronicled the rise of Nazism in Germany, saw how average people learned to live with, to adapt to, to bear the unbearable. In his 1942 diary he wrote: “Today over breakfast we talked about the extraordinary capacity of human beings to bear and become accustomed to things. The fantastic hideousness of our existence... and yet still hours of pleasure... and so we go on eking out a bare existence and go on hoping.”

Sebastian Haffner, another German observer, noted in Defying Hitler that even he, a staunch anti-Nazi, found himself one day saluting, wearing a uniform, and marching (and even secretly enjoying the feeling of authority associated with it). “To resist seemed pointless;” he wrote of himself, “finally, with astonishment, he observed himself raising his arm, fitted with a swastika armband, in the Nazi salute.”

And Milton Mayer, in They Thought They Were Free, described how good, decent Germans came to accept fascism. He was a Chicago reporter who, following World War II, went to Germany to interview ten “average Germans” to try to learn how such a terrible thing could have happened and, hopefully, thus prevent it from ever happening here.

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people,” a German college professor told Mayer, “little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security....”

As Mayer’s professor friend noted, and Mayer recorded in his book: “This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow-motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. ...

“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it — please try to believe me — unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. … [O]ne no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.”

In this conversation, Mayer’s friend suggests that he wasn’t making an excuse for not resisting the rise of the fascists but was simply pointing out what happens when you keep your head down and just assume that ultimately the good guys will win: “You see,” Mayer’s friend continued, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. …

“But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jew swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose.”

Everything seems the same, Mayer’s friend told him. You still go to work, cash your paycheck, have friends over, go to the movies, enjoy a meal out. The regime even backs down from time to time, making things seem ever more normal. Little victories, you tell yourself.

Except, as the German professor told Mayer, they’re not. One day, he said, you realize that:

“The world you live in — your nation, your people — is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays.

“But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God.”

Sound familiar?

Consider Stephen Miller’s recent musing about suspending habeas corpus to lock up immigrants and even protestors without trial: “Well, the Constitution is clear — and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land — that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion.”) That would’ve sparked emergency hearings a decade ago. Can you imagine if Obama had asserted such a power? Now it’s barely a blip.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint to purge civil servants and replace them with regime loyalists in complete defiance of the Pendelton Civil Service Act (and the reasons it came into being), should have set off alarm bells. Instead, it got the same treatment Trump gave Covid and his multiple defiances of the law and the courts: denial, deflection, delay…and eventually acceptance with barely a follow-up peep from the media.

It all comes back to normalization, as M. Gessen so brilliantly chronicled in The New York Times: “And so just when we most need to act — while there is indeed room for action and some momentum to the resistance — we tend to be lulled into complacency by the sense of relief on the one hand and boredom on the other.

“Think of the trajectory of the so-called travel ban during Trump’s first term. Its first iteration drew thousands into the streets. The courts blocked it. The second iteration didn’t attract nearly as much attention, and most people didn’t notice when the third iteration of the travel ban, which had hardly changed, went into effect. Now Trump’s administration is drafting a new travel ban that targets more than five times as many countries.”

Congressional Democrats, thinking they’re winning the PR war (and not realizing this is a battle within that war, not the war itself) are suggesting they’ll only vote to fund DHS/ICE this week to avoid a government shutdown under the following conditions, as Reuters reports: “Democrats are seeking: a prohibition on ICE detentions or deportations of American citizens; a ban on masks worn by ICE agents; a requirement to wear body cameras; explicit prohibitions on excessive use of force; prohibitions on raids of churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship, as well as hospitals and schools; and no absolute immunity from prosecution of agents violating codes of conduct.”

It’s a reasonable list, if ICE were a legitimate institution worth preserving. And, of course, we do need somebody to enforce our immigration laws.

But this agency has become so corrupt, has developed such a toxic culture, and has hired so many outright dangerous former felons and open racists, that it must be shut down and replaced. And what about arresting and prosecuting the people who committed the murders that we know about? And investigating the ones we’ve only heard rumors of? And letting that prosecution go right up the chain of command all the way to the top, like it did during Watergate, when the Attorney General of the United States went to prison for years?

Why aren’t Democrats talking like that? You know, if the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans would be.

Even if Republicans were to accept all these reforms — and odds are they won’t — we’d still be on the same path toward fascism. It would just look more orderly and lawful, and we’d breathe a sigh of relief, not realizing we’d just helped the Trump regime with their latest readaptation. When we stop being shocked, we stop reacting. And when we stop reacting, democracy dies.

But there is a path forward. The antidote to normalization is outrage and resistance. Not just in voting booths, but in the streets, in courtrooms, in classrooms, in boardrooms, in pulpits, and at dinner tables.

Thucydides, who had one of the clearest eyes in history about the dangers faced by democracies, said: “The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet nonetheless go out to meet it.”

We must regain our vision and resensitize ourselves. We must reclaim our capacity to be appalled.

That means when Trump calls Democrats “vermin” and attacks Somalis like Representative Ilhan Omar we don’t say “that’s just Trump being Trump”; we say, “That’s fascist rhetoric.” When he promises to use the military against American citizens and sends out immigration officers dressed up like soldiers at war, we don’t shrug; we organize and demand an end to the entire rotten undertaking.

History won’t forgive us for sleepwalking into tyranny. And our children won’t either. This is the time to remember that democracy is not self-sustaining. It requires outrage. It demands vigilance. And sometimes, it needs us peacefully in the streets with our fists in the air and our boots on the pavement. If we still believe in this republic, in its ideals, and in the sacred value of a free and fair society, then our answer to Trump’s authoritarianism must be more than words. It must be peaceful action.

Don’t get used to fascism. Get loud. Get active. Get in its way. And demand that our Democratic leaders do the same.

 -Thom Hartmann


"A Lying Government"


In Minneapolis, two recent fatal encounters with federal immigration agents have produced not only grief and anger, but an unusually clear fight over what is real. In the aftermath of Alex Pretti’s killing on Jan. 24, 2026, federal officials claimed the Border Patrol officers who fired weapons at least 10 times acted in self-defense.

But independent media analyses showed the victim holding a phone, not a gun, throughout the confrontation. Conflicting reports about the earlier death of Renée Good have similarly intensified calls for independent review and transparency. Minnesota state and local officials have described clashes with federal agencies over access to evidence and investigative authority.

That pattern matters because in fast-moving crises, early official statements often become the scaffolding on which public judgment is built. Sometimes those statements turn out to be accurate. But sometimes they do not.

When the public repeatedly experiences the same sequence – confident claims, partial disclosures, shifting explanations, delayed evidence, lies – the damage can outlast any single incident. It teaches people that “the facts” are simply one more instrument of power, distributed strategically. 

And once that lesson sinks in, even truthful statements arrive under suspicion. And when government stories keep changing, democracy pays the price.

CNN’s Jake Tapper goes through key excerpts from a judge’s ruling which found that Border Patrol official Greg Bovino lied “multiple times” about events surrounding his deployment of tear gas in a Chicago neighborhood.

Lying in politics

This is not a novel problem. During the U.S. Civil War, for example, President Abraham Lincoln handled hostile press coverage with a blunt mix of repression and restraint. His administration shut down hundreds of newspapers, arrested editors and censored telegraph lines, even as Lincoln himself often absorbed vicious, personal ridicule.

The Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s brought similar disingenuous attempts by the Reagan administration to manage public perception, as did misleading presidential claims about weapons of mass destruction in the 2003 leadup to the Iraq War.

During the Vietnam era, the gap between what officials said in public and what they knew in private was especially stark. Both the Johnson and Nixon administrations repeatedly insisted the war was turning a corner and that victory was near. However, internal assessments described a grinding stalemate.

Those contradictions came to light in 1971 when The New York Times and The Washington Post published the Pentagon Papers, a classified Defense Department history of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam. The Nixon administration fiercely opposed the document’s public release.

Several months later, political philosopher Hannah Arendt published an essay in the New York Review of Books called “Lying in Politics”. It was also reprinted in a collection of essays titled “Crises of the Republic.”

Arendt, a Jewish refugee who fled Germany in 1933 to escape Nazi persecution and the very real risk of deportation to a concentration camp, argued that when governments try to control reality rather than report it, the public stops believing and becomes cynical. People “lose their bearings in the world,” she wrote.

‘Nobody believes anything any longer’

Arendt first articulated this argument in 1951 with the publication of “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” in which she examined Nazism and Stalinism. She further refined it in her reporting for The New Yorker on the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, a major coordinator of the Holocaust.

Arendt did not wonder why officials lie. Instead, she worried about what happens to a public when political life trains citizens to stop insisting on a shared, factual world.

Arendt saw the Pentagon Papers as more than a Vietnam story. They were evidence of a broader shift toward what she called “image-making” – a style of governance in which managing the audience becomes at least as important as following the law. When politics becomes performance, the factual record is not a constraint. It is a prop that can be manipulated.

The greatest danger of organized, official lying, Arendt warned, is not that people will believe something that is false. It is that repeated, strategic distortions make it impossible for citizens to orient themselves in reality. “The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie,” she wrote, “but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world … [gets] destroyed.”

She sharpened the point further in a line that feels especially poignant in today’s fragmented, rapid and adversarial information environment: “If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer,” she wrote

“A lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history … depending on how the political wind blows. And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge.”

When officials lie time and again, the point isn’t that a single lie becomes accepted truth, but that the story keeps shifting until people don’t know what to trust. And when this happens, citizens cannot deliberate, approve or dissent coherently, because a shared world no longer exists.

A gray-haired woman with a cigarette, looking thoughtful.

                                    Political theorist Hannah Arendt in 1963. 

Maintaining legitimacy

Arendt helps clarify what Minneapolis is showing us, and why the current federal government posture matters beyond one city. Immigration raids are high-conflict operations by design. They happen quickly, often without public visibility, and they ask targeted communities to accept a heavy federal presence as legitimate. When killings occur in that context, truth and transparency are essential. They protect the government’s legitimacy with the public.

Reporting on the Pretti case shows why. Even as federal government leaders issued definitive claims about the victim’s allegedly threatening behavior – they said Pretti approached agents while brandishing a gun – video evidence contradicted that official account.

The point isn’t that every disputed detail in a fast-moving, complicated event causes public harm. It’s that when officials make claims that appear plainly inconsistent with readily available evidence – as in the initial accounts of what happened with Pretti – that mismatch is itself damaging to public trust.

Distorted declarations paired with delayed disclosure, selective evidence or interagency resistance to outside investigations nudge the public toward a conclusion that official accounts are a strategy for controlling the story, and not a description of reality.

Truth is a public good

Politics is not a seminar in absolute clarity, and competing claims are always part of the process. Democracies can survive spin, public relations and even occasional falsehoods. But Arendt’s observations show that it is the normalization of blatant dishonesty and systematic withholding that threatens democracy. Those practices corrode the factual ground on which democratic consent is built.

The U.S. Constitution assumes a people capable of what Arendt called judgment – citizens who can weigh evidence, assign responsibility and act through law and politics.

If people are taught that “truth” is always contingent and always tactical, the harm goes beyond misinformation. A confused, distrustful public is easier to manage and harder to mobilize into meaningful democratic participation. It becomes less able to act, because action requires a shared world in which decisions can be understood, debated and contested.

The Minneapolis shootings are not only an argument about use of force. They are a test of whether public institutions will treat facts and truth as a public good – something owed to the community precisely when tensions are highest. If democratic life depends on a social contract among the governed and those governing, that contract cannot be sustained on shifting sand. It requires enough shared reality to support disagreement.

When officials reshape the facts, the damage isn’t only to the record. The damage is to the basic belief that a democratic public can know what its government has done.

-The Conversation

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin 

 

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Companies with the Biggest Contracts that Support U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement


AT&T: The telecommunications giant was awarded $90.7 million in 2021 to provide ICE with IT, network products and support in a contract set to expire in September, though it includes a potential end date of 2032 that could push the deal’s value to $165.2 million

Charter Communications: The company provides cable and internet services for ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations field office in Beaumont, Texas, in a contract valued at $12,837, which may expand to $21,839 and extend until 2028.

Comcast: The company holds an ICE award valued at $60,965.64 to provide the agency with broadcast cable at five “regional wire rooms.”

Dell: The company’s government contracting arm was awarded $18.8 million in April 2025 to support the office of ICE’s chief information officer “through the purchase of the Microsoft Enterprise software licenses.”

Deloitte: ICE has awarded the consulting firm several multiyear contracts in recent years, including a $24 million contract in 2023 to provide “data modernization support” through 2027.

FedEx: The mail carrier provides delivery services for ICE through March 2027 in a contract valued at $2.3 million.

General Dynamics: The defense firm holds a $9.6 million contract with ICE to provide “background investigative services.”

L3 Harris: Defense contractor L3 Harris was awarded a $4.4 million contract with ICE in 2022 to provide equipment to “determine the location of targeted mobile handsets to investigate crimes and threats.”

Motorola Solutions: A separate firm from the cell phone maker Motorola Mobility that produces walkie-talkies and video surveillance systems, Motorola Solutions was awarded a $15.6 million contract in September 2023 to “implement and maintain” ICE’s tactical communication infrastructure.

Palantir: The tech and analytics software provider was awarded $139.3 million in 2022 to assist “investigative case management operations,” maintenance support and “custom enhancements.”

Surprising Fact

Management consultancy firm McKinsey & Company said in July 2018 it would stop work for ICE after disclosing it had done $20 million in consulting work for the agency. The disclosure reportedly sparked protests among current and former employees who opposed immigration policies during President Donald Trump’s first term. 

Employees at Microsoft similarly protested the company’s $19.4 million contract with ICE, though Microsoft never disclosed whether it cut ties with the agency (CEO Satya Nadella said in 2018 the company provided cloud support for ICE and called Trump’s immigration policies at the time “simply cruel and abusive.”). 

Last week, more than 250 employees at several tech giants—including Amazon, Palantir, Spotify, Google and Tesla, among others—demanded their employers to speak publicly against ICE, “call the White House and demand that ICE leave our cities” and to cancel all company contracts with the agency. It’s not immediately clear whether some of the companies hold contracts with ICE…There are many more companies than the aforementioned... 

-Forbes